MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relationship Between Psychological Needs, Self‐Determined Motivation, Exercise Attitudes, and Physical Fitness<sup>1</sup>

2003· article· en· W2137959030 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeci-PsychologyCompetence (human resources)Self-determination theoryAutonomySocial psychologyIntrinsic motivationPhysical fitnessPhysical activityPhysical educationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between psychological need satisfaction (competence, autonomy, and relatedness), exercise regulations, and motivational consequences proposed by Self‐Determination Theory (SDT; Deci &amp; Ryan, 1985; Ryan &amp; Deci, 2000). The secondary purpose was to explore changes in these constructs over the course of a 12‐week prescribed exercise program. Results indicated competence and autonomy were positively correlated with more self‐determined exercise regulations, which in turn were more positively related to exercise behavior, attitudes, and physical fitness. Multiple regression analyses revealed that exercise behavior mediated the relationship between self‐determined motives and physical fitness, and both identified and intrinsic exercise regulations contributed significantly to the prediction of attitudes. Paired‐sample t tests supported modest to large changes in need satisfaction constructs, as well as identified and intrinsic regulations over the 12‐week exercise program. These results suggest that SDT is a useful framework for studying motivational issues in the exercise domain.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.305 · 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