I'm an exerciser: Common conceptualisations of and variation in exercise identity meanings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identities are meanings associated with a role. Identity meanings encapsulate what it involves for an individual to hold an identity. These meanings provide a standard which individuals seek to realise in order to confirm the identity [Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press]. Identity theorists posit that there are identity meanings that are common among individuals [McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions. New York, NY: Free Press]; yet they also recognise variability in these meanings [Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings]. Only a few researchers have addressed the content of identity meanings and none that we are aware of have examined the idea of variability in these meanings. Through a qualitative investigation of exercise identity meanings, we explore both the meanings that people use to define themselves as exercisers (purpose 1) and the extent to which there is variability in exercise identity meanings (purpose 2). We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with exercisers and analysed the interviews through thematic analysis. Themes of purposefulness, priority, and consistency of exercise as well as behavioural and non-behavioural characteristics of exercise emerged. Among interviewees, there was much commonality with regard to the categories that comprised identity meanings. Variability within these categories was evident. The present findings lead us to suggest that individuals employ common standards to define themselves as exercisers, yet also instil their personal definitions of what it means to be an exerciser. These findings have implications for conceptualisations of exercise identity meanings and may inform exercise identity research and interventions.
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 | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".