MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177555927 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2015.1038372

The Effects of Urbanization, Motivation, and Constraint on Chinese People's Leisure-Time Physical Activity

2015· article· en· W2177555927 on OpenAlexaff
Huimei Liu, Gordon J. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Structural equation modelingUrbanizationLeisure timeMacroPsychologyInterpersonal communicationIntrinsic motivationPhysical activitySocial psychologyMathematicsEconomicsMedicineComputer scienceEconomic growthStatisticsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effects of micro (i.e., motivation, constraint) and macro (i.e., urbanization) factors on Chinese people's leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). Participants representing high (n = 170) and low (n = 146) urbanization levels completed an on-site questionnaire. T-tests indicated that fitness/health was the most important motivation, followed by enjoyment and perseverance; structural constraint was the most important barrier, followed by interpersonal constraint. Structural equation modeling also indicated that: (a) urbanization positively affected LTPA participation and constraints to LTPA; (b) motivation positively, and constraint negatively, influenced LTPA; and (c) motivation and constraint were not related. These findings suggest that examining macro factors such as urbanization could improve our understanding of LTPA, as well as the micro factors that affect it.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure SciencesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207