Can physical activity be assessed distally to basic psychological needs and self efficacy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the stability of relationships between basic psychological needs satisfaction as well as task and barriers self-efficacy with moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in a sample of children (aged 10-14 years). Children (N = 46; 23 females) completed physical activity specific measures of basic psychological needs satisfaction and self-efficacy at baseline. One (T1) and 6 weeks (T2) later children completed a 7 day physical activity recall tapping moderate to MVPA. Task self-efficacy, autonomy and competence were significantly correlated with T1 MVPA (r's = .34, .40 & .39, p's < .05) and accounted for 22% (p < .01) of the associated variance. The relationship between T2 MVPA and competence was significant (r = .29, p = .05) and the correlation between T2 MVPA and autonomy approached significance (r = .27, p = .07) however, these variables were not predictive of T2 MVPA when analysed by hierarchical multiple regression. Evidence that in this sample of children relationships between psychological constructs and MVPA diminished when they were measured 6 weeks apart underscores the importance of assessing these variables proximally.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".