MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394907134 · doi:10.1177/0164027515606191

Possible Selves and Physical Activity in Retirees

2015· article· en· W2394907134 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie G. M. Perras, Shaelyn M. Strachan, Michelle Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityMediationIdentity (music)PsychologyPerceptionBootstrapping (finance)Social psychologyPsychological interventionHealth benefitsDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many retirees remain insufficiently physically active for health benefits. Self-perceptions can influence physical activity. Possible selves and identity are two self-perceptions that, when examined relative to physical activity, may help explain physical activity levels among retirees. Scholars claim that a focus on possible selves may impact identity, which, in the physical activity domain, is a known physical activity correlate. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between these variables, and more specifically, to determine whether exercise identity mediates the relationship between physical activity possible selves and physical activity. We examined the proposed mediation relationship in 531 new retirees. Data were collected across three time points (1 month apart). We conducted mediation analyses with bootstrapping. Identity mediated the relationship between possible selves (content and processes) and behavior-all related to physical activity. These findings represent an important first step toward designing relevant physical activity interventions for retirees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch on AgingSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207