Generalizing the Findings From Group Dynamics–Based Physical Activity Research to Practice Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general purpose of this secondary analysis of a prior systematic review was to determine the degree to which group dynamics-based physical activity interventions align with research processes and outcomes that are more likely to facilitate the translation of research into practice. To accomplish this, a systematic search was conducted within Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, and MEDLINE databases to identify articles published prior to 2010 that used at least one group dynamics-based strategy (e.g., group interaction, group goal setting) in physical activity promotion. These 17 intervention studies were identified and coded based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance framework and Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (for trial design characteristics). Reporting was infrequent for external validity factors (i.e., representativeness, adoption, cost, maintenance) but more frequent for internal validity factors (e.g., inclusion criteria). Intervention costs were not reported. Studies were more likely to be pragmatic (i.e., designed to determine the effects of an intervention under the usual conditions in which it will be applied) in areas of participant compliance and practitioner adherence and explanatory (i.e., designed to determine the effects of an intervention under ideal conditions) and in areas of practitioner expertise and flexibility of intervention protocol. While a number of these interventions were tested in more pragmatic settings, external validity factors were still underreported.
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 | 0.190 | 0.526 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".