University students' experiences in a physical activity intervention for mental and physical health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To facilitate future development and growth of physical activity interventions, qualitatively exploring participants' experiences in such interventions is warranted (Zakrajsek & Blanton, 2017). Therefore, interviews were conducted to explore students' experiences with respect to a 6-week physical activity program (UWorkitOut UWin) aimed at improving university students' mental and physical health. Participants included 27 low-risk sedentary university students (6 males, 21 females) referred by the university's counselling center. Individual open-ended interviews explored: 1) critical aspects of the program (e.g., personal training and exercise counseling), 2) likes and dislikes about the program, and 3) proposed changes to the program. The participants reported a variety of program outcomes including reduced anxiety, enhanced coping strategies, increased confidence and greater exercise knowledge. In addition, participants reported several benefits of the program (e.g., accountability, mentorship, free of charge) and would recommend the program to a friend seeking student counseling services. Furthermore, several suggestions were provided regarding aspects of the program that could be enhanced (e.g., lengthening the duration of the program, incorporating a nutrition component). Overall, the findings indicate that the intervention was valuable in providing students with the resources necessary to continue exercising. Furthermore, the intervention provided coping strategies to manage stress and anxiety during times of adversity (e.g., midterms and final exams). Recommendations for future research and strategies to promote physical activity with this low-risk population are provided.Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the University of Windsor Student Experience for funding this project.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".