A - 31 Competitiveness Drives Young University Students off the Couch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Purpose. Daily physical activity (PA) is effective in supporting cognitive and physical health. However, many Canadians do not meet the public health recommendation of at least 150 mins/week of moderate-to-vigorous PA. The current study examined individual differences in traits such as motivation (intrinsic-IM, extrinsic-EM), and competitiveness, as well as executive abilities (strategic planning; SP) in predicting physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Methods Method. 102 university students ages 18 to 30 (M = 20.78 years; 74% female) were recruited from a mid-sized Canadian city. Using a formula that differentially weighted moderate and vigorous activity (measured with the International PA Questionnaire), we fit a linear model predicting PA within the past week by SP (Executive Function Index), IM and EM (Global Motivation Scale), and competitiveness (Revised Competitiveness Scale). Results Results. Only competitiveness predicted PA within the past week (β = 0.309, p = 0.001). Follow-up regressions indicated enjoyment of the activity being the most predictive component (β =0.231, p = 0.017). Both EM (β = 0.202, p = 0.015) and IM (β = −0.223, p = 0.012) predicted sedentary behaviour when accounting for competitiveness and demographics (age, gender). Conclusions Conclusions. Strategic planning and motivation did not predict exercise within the past week and therefore did not appear to serve as precursors to PA engagement in this university sample. Competitiveness, and in particular the enjoyment of the activity, significantly predicted exercise engagement; however, IM was negatively associated with sedentary behaviour, whereas EM was positively associated, suggesting motivational differences in sedentary behaviour but not physical exercise. Further research is required to account for individual differences in physical activity engagement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".