Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate women (UW) generally exercise less than their male peers, a gap that widened throughout the COVID-19 pandemic due to limited access to opportunities and support. A promising approach to enhance exercise motivation is peer-mentorship (PM) program: pairing knowledge-seeking individuals with experienced mentors. To date, theoretically grounded UW PM research remains sparse. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, this experimental study explored how UW exercise engagement influenced motivation through a 6-week campus-based program. Both groups were expected to improve, with greater gains anticipated for intervention participants. Full-time inactive UW were randomized to an exercise-only or exercise-plus-PM condition. Six senior students with exercise expertise were trained as mentors via a workshop on motivational interviewing. All participants received a campus facility tour and encouragement to exercise triweekly. Mentors exercised with intervention participants once weekly and provided interim virtual support. Motivation was assessed at three time points using the Behavioural Regulations in Exercise Scale-3 (BREQ-3) and Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (PNSES); an open-ended exit-questionnaire captured program experiences. Twenty-six participants (13 control; 13 intervention) completed the program (M age = 24.3). Both conditions significantly (p < .05) increased their external, identified, and integrated regulation, and autonomy and competence. Intervention participants significantly improved their relatedness and amotivation. Qualitatively, participants appreciated the self-guided format, educational material, and peer-support. Results suggest that brief PM can positively influence motivational constructs to support exercise adherence and address UW unique barriers. Findings will be shared with campus stakeholders to help establish a foundation for lifelong habits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".