Perceived interpersonal supports in osteofit classes: A test of Self-Determination Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deci and Ryan (2002) posit the importance of three sources of perceived interpersonal support--autonomy support, structure, and involvement-- that, when fostered, promote psychological need fulfillment and the internalization of behavioural regulation. With interpersonal supports for structure and involvement suggested to facilitate partial internalization of behavioural regulation (i.e., introjected regulations), autonomy support has been deemed essential for fully internalized regulations (i.e., autonomous regulations; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The present study examined Deci and Ryan's (2000; 2002) contentions in a sample of individuals enrolled in a structured exercise class (i.e., OsteoFit) designed to meet the programmatic needs of individuals living with osteoporosis/osteopenia. Participants (N = 279; Mage = 74.13; SDage = 8.01) completed a self-report instrument at the mid-point of a 10-week structured exercise program. Interpersonal supports demonstrated a pattern of small-to-moderate positive correlations with psychological need fulfillment within the context of OsteoFit (r's ranged from .32 - .45). Results demonstrated that the three interpersonal supports were associated with fully internalized (i.e., intrinsic) regulations for behaviour (r's ranged from .21 to .26), but not extrinsic or introjected regulations (p > .05).Overall, this investigation provides support for the importance of perceived interpersonal supports outlined within SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002).Acknowledgments: Support for this project was provided by BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre OsteoFit program
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".