Longitudinal examination of exercise self-efficacy trajectories in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abundant research suggests that exercise self-efficacy is a critical determinant of behaviour and a multidimensional construct. The purpose of this study was to examine the trajectories of task, coping, and scheduling self-efficacy over a six month exercise program in men and women. Forty men (Mage = 43, SD = 10) and sixty women (Mage = 44, SD = 11) completed assessments of self-efficacy at baseline, 7, 12, and 24 weeks of the exercise program. The self-efficacy sub-types exhibited invariance over time and by gender. Latent growth curve models revealed individual differences in initial levels of task, coping, and scheduling self-efficacy and rates of change for coping and scheduling self-efficacy. Task self-efficacy did not change over time. For coping and scheduling self-efficacy, the functional form of change was quadratic, such that self-efficacy levels increased from baseline to 7 weeks, and then decreased at 12 and 24 weeks. Women's scheduling self-efficacy decreased more rapidly and deviated more from linearity than men's. Given that at 7 weeks exercise supervision ceased, support beyond 7 weeks may be needed to instill resilient coping and scheduling self-efficacy beliefs. Women may require additional support to develop their scheduling self-efficacy beliefs over and above that required by men. Acknowledgments: Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".