MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140724235 · doi:10.1300/j016v28n02_01

Exercising for Health

2004· article· en· W2140724235 on OpenAlex
Jochen Bocksnick

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

VenueActivities Adaptation & Aging · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Grounded theoryPsychologyTheory of planned behaviorApplied psychologyMedical educationGerontologySocial psychologyQualitative researchMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to describe the motivation process of older adults who had completed an exercise program that was offered three times a week for 45 minutes between September and December or and April. All respondents (N = 48, mean age = 66.4 years) volunteered to participate in an audiotaped and semi-structured interview. The questions for the interview were grounded in the theoretical concepts outlined in the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986) and the Rubicon Model (Heckhausen, 1989). The interviews provided a detailed account of the respondents' motivation to participate in the structured exercise program and a detailed description of their experiences during, and perceived outcomes from, their involvement in the program. The data suggested that important for the respondents' motivation to adhere to the exercise program was making a personal commitment and experiencing desirable changes in their physical competence, which the respondents attributed to their program participation.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.321 · 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