Should We Be Looking at the Forest or the Trees? Overall Psychological Need Satisfaction and Individual Needs as Predictors of Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to examine whether (a) measures designed to assess satisfaction of competence, autonomy, and relatedness needs in physical activity contexts can represent both general and specific needs satisfaction and (b) the specific needs are associated with concurrent moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) participation (Time 1) and MVPA participation 4 months later (Time 2), beyond general psychological need satisfaction (PNS). Data from 544 adolescents (Mage = 14.1 years, SD = 0.6) were analyzed. A bifactor model specifying four factors (i.e., one general PNS and three specific needs) provided a good fit to the data. Extending the model to predict Time 1 and Time 2 MVPA participation also provided a good fit to the data. General PNS and specific needs had unique and empirically distinguishable associations with MVPA participation. The bifactor operationalization of PNS provides a framework to delineate common and distinctive antecedents and outcomes of general PNS and specific needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".