You can't always get what you want: Motives and gains of new exercisers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the framework of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), participatory motives represent what people hope to achieve or avoid through engaging in a specific behavior. Gains represent their actual outcomes. A qualitative description approach was used to retrospectively explore the participatory motives and corresponding gains of adults who completed a year-long exercise program, as well as their adherence to exercise after the program ended. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 female and 8 male participants (M = 49.9 years, SD = 10). Transcripts were subjected to content analysis and three primary themes emerged. First, shifting focus from weight and appearance to quality of life and improved health involved participatory motives for exercise without corresponding gains, as well as unexpected gains in other areas that led to new motives, resulting in a shift in focus from more controlled motives to more autonomous motives. Second, education and confidence comprised a common motive for participating in the program (learning to exercise safely and effectively in a gym setting) that was accompanied by increased perceived competence and confidence. Third, accountability/self-generated obligation to exercise for others represented a very important participatory motive and gain that were tied to the study. Participants hoped that a year of regular, structured exercise, would translate into long-term exercise adherence, but when the program finished, they experienced dramatic decreases in their exercise frequency and intensity. It appears that it was difficult to replace the sense of obligation provided by the study with a more sustainable motive for exercise.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".