Older and More Experienced? Comparing Mainland Chinese International Students in Canada on Social Cognitive Correlates of Leisure Time Physical Activity, Acculturation, and Mental Health by Study Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity is a mandatory component of many university programs in China and there is evidence that Chinese students value physical activity for health (Chen & Liu, 2008); however, academics are generally prioritized as students advance in their studies (Ha, Macdonald, & Pang, 2010). Among international students in the United States, Asian students were found to have some of the lowest rates of physical activity, which could be linked with many combinations of cultural, environmental, and individual barriers (Yoh, Yang, & Gordon, 2008). Physical activity may aid in healthy transitions for Chinese international students. Aim: Chinese international students were compared by study year on physical activity, mental health, culture, and social cognitive theory variables. Method: First year (n = 92), second year (n = 52), and senior (n = 77) international students studying in Canada were compared on physical activity, self-efficacy, intention, access, stress, acculturative stress, subjective well-being, acculturation, and self-construal. The relationships between the social cognitive, mental health, culture variables, and physical activity were also compared. Results: Senior students perceived fewer places to do physical activity and more discrimination compared to first- and second-year students. Senior students experienced more academic pressure and guilt towards their family compared to second year students. First year students reported more general stress compared to second year students. Self-efficacy, intention, and exercise to reduce stress shared relationships with vigorous physical activity. Subjective well-being was related to moderate physical activity, and self-efficacy and independent self-construal were related to walking. Walking decreased by study year. Conclusions: Physical activity may be used to improve mental health for Chinese international students, but interventions may need to be adjusted or implemented depending on the academic stage of the student.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".