The effects of exercise on state anxiety prior to university examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research attempted to find if long-term involvement in an exercise program decreased state anxiety in university-aged participants. This research examined the influence of exercise on examination anxiety in undergraduate university students. The hypothesis included an expectation to see a smaller level of state anxiety in the exercising participants prior to exams, compared to low or non-exercising participants. The Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) and the Aerobics Centre Longitudinal Study Physical Activity Questionnaire (ACLS) were handed out immediately prior to the writing of the end of term examinations. 224 undergraduate Kinesiology students participated in this study. A multiple regression was performed on the data for the CSAI-2 and the METS values, from the ACLS, to determine if there was a relationship between anxiety and amount of exercise. The analysis showed no significant relationships between exercise and anxiety. An analysis of variance using the total score on the METS exercise and the cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence scores on the CSAI-2 showed that the amount of exercise did not have a significant effect on anxiety levels. This indicates that there is no relationship between the level of exercise that an individual performs and the level of somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety or self-confidence that an individual experiences prior to examinations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".