Boys, Transitions, and Physical (In)activity: Exploring the Socio-Behavioural Mediators of Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the socio-behavioural mechanisms that motivate or dissuade boys' participation in physical activity (PA) as they transition into adolescence and their implications for physical therapy. METHODS: This critical qualitative study involved in-depth interviews using active interviewing techniques with 15 adolescent boys. Data generation and analysis were driven by techniques of grounded theory and Bourdieu's sociology of practice. RESULTS: The analysis identified intersectional relationships among emotions, the inherent pleasures of movement, and a sense of connectedness to PA, each of which acted as a mediating mechanism in motivating participation in PA. Analogously, body dissatisfaction, negative self-perceptions, and repeated instances of explicit and symbolic bullying intersected to dissuade boys from participating and created apathy toward PA. CONCLUSION: Identifying socio-behavioural mechanisms that motivate or dissuade physically active behaviour contributes new knowledge toward understanding PA attrition among boys transitioning to adolescence. As health advocates and movement experts, physiotherapists have an important role in helping adolescents of all abilities to participate in activities that provide them with meaning, inclusivity, and a sense of connectedness to PA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".