Level up the life!! Leisure Involvement, Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leisure participation, life satisfaction, and psychological needs stand out as concepts that are closely related to each other especially in exercise participation. The purpose of this study is to determine and analyze leisure involvement, basic psychological need satisfaction, and life satisfaction level concerning some variables among university students who are regular exercise participants. Study participants comprised a total of 428 university students who were regular exercise participants. The participants, who were chosen using a convenience sampling method, completed the “Modified Involvement Scale” (MIS), “Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale” (BPNES) and Life Satisfaction Scale” (LSS). T-test, MANOVA, and correlation analysis were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that the main effect of gender was significant on “MIS” “BPNES” and “LSS” in favor of male participants. There were significant effects of type of exercise in favor of individual exercise participants. Further, there were statistically significant correlations between all scales. Participation in leisure activities positively affects the person’s perspectives on all areas of life and determines the individual's feelings like autonomy, competency, and feeling more related to their lives. The findings of this study also give useful insights into exercise psychology research and provide suggestions for future research.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".