From organized sport motivation to exercise regulations: differences according sport type and intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation to take part in sufficient levels of physical activity (PA) is a common problem during adolescence. This study investigated associations between motive for sport participation and behavioral regulations towards PA practice. A cohort of 1804 adolescents involved in a large organized sport event, ‘Quebec’s Summer Games Final’ completed questionnaires preceding their participation to the games. Fifteen sports were represented and categorized regarding sport type (team versus individual) and intensity (moderate versus high). Group comparisons were conducted with invariance testing. In summary, motives for competition were significantly associated with identified and intrinsic motivation. Motives for fitness-health were significantly associated with identified motivation, and motives for socialization were significantly associated with external motivation. Significant differences were observed, when comparing the level of intensity and sport type. Such differences are attributed to sport culture and from the participants’ selection process. This study suggests stakeholders to consider approaches that will develop self-determined regulations among those who are involved in particularly moderate intensity activities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".