MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131775966 · doi:10.1123/tsp.14.4.348

More about Exercise Imagery

2000· article· en· W2131775966 on OpenAlex
Kimberley L. Gammage, Craig Hall, Wendy M. Rodgers

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sport Psychologist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental imageCognitionPhysical activityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imagery plays important cognitive and motivational roles in many areas of life, including sport (Paivio, 1985) and exercise (Hausenblas, Hall, Rodgers, & Munroe, 1999). The purpose of the present paper was to examine how the cognitive and motivational roles of exercise imagery vary with gender, frequency of exercise, and activity type. Participants ( n = 577) completed the Exercise Imagery Questionnaire (Hausenblas et al„ 1999) which measures appearance, energy, and technique imagery. Participants, regardless of gender, frequency of exercise, or activity type, used appearance imagery most frequently, followed by technique and energy, respectively. Men used significantly more technique imagery than women did, while women used significantly more appearance imagery than men did. In addition, high frequency exercisers (3 or more times per week) used all types of imagery more frequently than low frequency exercisers (2 or fewer times per week). Finally, imagery differences existed based on type of activity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1210.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it