Employee Physical Activity: A Multidisciplinary Integrative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While physical activity is widely recognized to be relevant to employee well-being and organizational health care costs, the management literature has yet to clarify when, how, and why employee physical activity influences job performance. Therefore, the goal of this review is to provide a cross-disciplinary synthesis of evidence surrounding the implications of physical activity for job performance. After first conducting an emergent systematic review of the management literature to verify our assertion that this research base has inadequately addressed the relationship between physical activity and job performance, we performed a cross-disciplinary review of six key disciplines (sports sciences, public environmental occupational health, general medicine internal, physiology, neuroscience, and psychology/psychiatry) to develop a resource-based framework that serves to identify how physical activity relates to job performance. This unifying framework is intended to guide future research on employee physical activity. As an initial application of this framework, we provide a set of future research directions centered on empirically evaluating proposed mechanisms, boundary conditions, and temporal factors that can inform physical activity research in organizational contexts.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it