Physical activity context and university student's propensity to meet the guidelines Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/American College of Sports Medicine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research shows that exercise context is important for exercise adherence--exercising alone is associated with reduced adherence whereas exercising with others is associated with increased adherence. The purpose of the study was to examine whether exercising in one or a combination of four contexts for physical activity (in a structured class, with others outside of a structured class, alone but in an exercise setting, and completely alone) is related to the degree to which university students meet prescribed (i.e., CDC/ACSM) guidelines for aerobic activity. MATERIAL/METHODS: Males (n=196) and females (n=398) completed a self-reported physical activity questionnaire pertaining to the frequency, intensity and duration of their activity in the four contexts outlined above. RESULTS: A positive relationship was found between the percentage of students meeting CDC/ACSM Guidelines and the number of contexts in which physical activity was undertaken. That is, a small percentage (9.9%) were active in a single context (i.e., only one context out of a possible four), with the majority of those (5.9%) engaging in physical activity with others outside of a structured setting. A larger percentage (28.9%) were active in two contexts, while 61.2% were active in three or more contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals interested in motivating the physically inactive to become more active and the physically active to maintain activity at a frequency, intensity, and duration sufficient to meet the CDC/ACSM guidelines ought to promote opportunities for physical activity in a variety of social contexts.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".