If I run but don't post it, am I still a runner? The role of social media in holding a running group identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identity theories have been used to understand exercise behaviours. Being part of an exercise group has been shown to strengthen one's exercise identity, with stronger exercise-related identities associated with greater efficacy, more positive beliefs and greater exercise engagement. Groups formed on social media platforms are a common way to connect with others, and evidence suggests that people use these forums to create/present certain identities. The current study examined how running group members use social media in relation to their exercise behaviours and whether use of these online groups impacts members' identities. Running group members (N=34, Mage=41) completed online measures of running behaviour, identity, Facebook addiction, and use of the running group's social media site. The majority of the participants (79%) posted their running behaviour on at least one social media outlet. They did so to motivate others, or because they were proud of their accomplishments. When confronted with not being able to post their running behaviour, 35% of participants reacted negatively. Regression analysis showed that after controlling for time with the group, Facebook use and use of the running group's social media site accounted for 54% (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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".