Self-regulation as a Mediator of Mindfulness and Physical Activity: A Narrative 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
Mindfulness is gaining increased attention as a means of increasing physical activity (PA) participation. Given that only 15.4% of adult Canadians currently meet the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (Colley et al., 2011), it is imperative to find ways to increase PA among adults. One way to do this is to promote self-regulation skills as self-regulation is among the top predictors of PA participation (Teixeira et al., 2015). The purpose of this narrative review was to further understand the role of self-regulation as a potential mechanism by which mindfulness may be related to PA participation. Initially, 160 papers were identified by title for this review. After reading abstracts, 37 papers were identified as possibly relating to the topic of interest. Following full readings, 26 papers were included in the final review. Likely due to the novelty of this topic, there is limited research on the mechanisms by which mindfulness may be related to physical activity. Review of the literature suggests that self-regulation appears to be a promising mechanism by which mindfulness could improve physical activity participation (Shapiro et al., 2006; Samdal et al., 2017), as self-regulation has been shown to play an important role in behaviour change, however, other alternative mechanisms include improved self-efficacy, as well as improved satisfaction (Neace et al., 2020; Tsafou et al., 2016). The authors conclude that more research on the mechanisms of mindfulness on PA, specifically self-regulation as a mechanism, could foster more knowledgeable intervention practices, and consequently improve mindfulness-based interventions efficacy.
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) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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