Implicit and explicit outcome expectations for physical activity in older adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescents' physical activity (PA) choices may involve reasoned thought, but also may be impulsive, with little reflection. Furthermore, the outcomes adolescents expect from PA (e.g. look good, have fun) can influence their impetus to engage in, or avoid, active pursuits. The purpose of this study was to explore older adolescents' reflective and impulsive thoughts about health- and social/appearance-related PA outcomes and investigate how those thoughts relate to their PA behaviour. Method: One hundred and thirty-seven undergraduate students (103 female; 34 male) aged 17-19 (M=18.12, SD=0.65) completed a Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001) that assessed automaticity (via response times) of associations between PA words and either health outcomes (e.g. energetic, happy, strong) or social/appearance outcomes (e.g. thin, popular, muscular). Participants also completed questionnaires assessing PA behaviour, attitudes, outcome expectations, and physical self-perceptions. Results: Adolescents demonstrated a significant positive automatic association of PA with social/appearance outcomes, F(1,136)=4.403, p
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 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".