MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158759091 · doi:10.1348/135910707x180378

Effects of abstinence from habitual involvement in regular exercise on feeling states: An ecological momentary assessment study

2007· article· en· W2158759091 on OpenAlexaff
Heather A. Hausenblas, Lise Gauvin, Danielle Symons Downs, Aaron R. Duley

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Health Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPsychologyAbstinenceAerobic exercisePhysical exercisePhysical therapyClinical psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regular exercise was experimentally reduced to determine its effects on positive feeling states. Using ecological momentary assessments, 40 participants maintained their regular exercise routine on 3 days and were deprived of their scheduled exercise on 3 other days. They recorded their feeling states, using the Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory, four times daily as well as prior to and following exercise. Multi-level modelling analyses controlling for diurnal variations in feeling states revealed that positive feeling states were elevated on days when exercise deprivation occurred compared with non-exercise days and when no deprivation manipulation occurred. People with lower exercise dependence symptoms felt better on days when they were deprived from exercise compared with non-exercise days, whereas people with higher exercise dependence symptoms felt about the same when they were deprived from exercise compared with non-exercise days. These findings demonstrate that positive feeling states occur following an acute bout of exercise and that exercise deprivation had a positive impact on feeling states, with the level of exercise dependence symptoms moderating this effect.

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 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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.400 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Health PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207