Cohesion as Shared Beliefs in Exercise Classes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine if perceptions of cohesion in exercise classes demonstrated sufficiently high consensus and between-group variance to support a conclusion that exercise classes are groups. Participants (N = 1,700) in 130classes were tested on either the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) or the Physical Activity Group Environment Questionnaire (PAGEQ). Results showed that exercise classes satisfied the statistical criteria necessary to support a conclusion that they are true groups; that is, they exhibited acceptable levels of consensus about cohesion within classes and acceptable differences in cohesion between classes. In addition, index-of-agreement values were significantly greater for participants completing the PAGEQ than for participants completing the GEQ. Finally, consensus was greatest when participants evaluated how the exercise class satisfied their own personal task needs (i.e., individual attractions to the group-task), and second greatest when participants evaluated the collective unity around the task objectives (i.e., group integration-task).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it