Perceptions of groupness during fitness classes positively predict recalled perceptions of exertion, enjoyment, and affective valence: An intensive longitudinal investigation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 42.35 years) completed surveys following each fitness class attended (695 unique responses). Using multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, we confirmed a theorized two-factor structure of groupness at both the within-and between-person levels. Multilevel modeling revealed that class-to-class fluctuations in exercisers' perceptions of groupness explained a considerable portion of variance in recalled perceptions of exertion, enjoyment, and affective valence. Specifically, during classes in which exercisers' perceptions of groupness were relatively higher, exercisers reported more recalled enjoyment, affective valence, and exertion. Focusing on how variability in groupness perceptions may influence exercise adherence, these findings demonstrate the value in fitness classes feeling like authentic groups. In studying the dynamic aspects of group evaluations, the current study makes novel advancements to group theories applied to exercise settings. Perhaps most notably, individuals' variations in their cognitive evaluations of fitness groups were closely linked to their affective responses to exercise.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".