Nutritional supplement use and achievement goal orientations in sport and physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of nutritional supplements has become an increasingly common practice, especially among university-age athletes (Froiland, Koszewaki, Hingst, & Kopecky, 2004). Categories of nutritional supplements include energy, protein, vitamin, herbal, and mineral supplements, which are most commonly taken with the purpose of increasing overall health or maximizing athletic performance (Froiland et al., 2004). Motivation for performing certain behaviours, including nutritional supplement use, in an athletic and active context may be explained by achievement goal orientations. Five dimensions of achievement goal orientations have been identified as self-enhancing ego-orientation, self-defeating ego-orientation, task-orientation, work avoidant-orientation, and social approval-orientation (Gilson, Chow, & Ewing, 2008). The purpose of this study was to assess relationships between nutritional supplement use in university-age physically active individuals and their achievement goal orientations. Ninety-three participants completed a basic and sport- and physical activity-specific demographic questions, the Multiple Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (MGOSQ; Gilson et al., 2008), and a nutritional supplement inventory. A significant logistic regression, ChiSq (5) = 13.9, p = .016, found individuals high on self-enhancing ego orientation to be 2.01 times more likely to use supplements than those low on self-enhancing ego orientation. Individuals low on social-approval orientation were 7.39 times less likely to take nutritional supplements than those high on social-approval orientation. Findings may have implications for control of supplement use for both teams and individuals in athletic settings to implement a task-oriented environment that encourages self-referenced success and progression of skills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".