Motivation for Physical Activity as a Key Determinant of Sedentary Behavior Among Postsecondary Students
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
It is known that the transition to adulthood represents a critical period of life when acquiring healthy behaviors can influence lifestyle and health throughout adulthood. Given the importance of the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle, identifying influence factors is key to improving healthy behaviors. The objective of this study is to explore the role of postsecondary students’ motivation toward physical activity in the association with their screen time and out-of-school physical activity practice. A total of 1522 postsecondary students (90% were aged 17-20 years) recruited from 17 postsecondary institutions completed the self-reported questionnaire during course time. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess the association between motivation to move including additional predictors of behavior such as intention and tendency to self-activate and self-reported screen time and physical activity controlling for age and sex. Motivation including all 3 motivational variables (interest, utility, competence) was negatively associated with screen time, b = −0.498 (95% CI between −0.635 and −0.361) and positively associated with moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, b = 133.986, (95% CI between 102.129 and 165.843). Of the 3 motivational variables, interest had the strongest negative association with screen time, b = −0.434 (95% CI between −0.551 and −0.317), and the strongest positive association with physical activity, b = 113.671, (95% CI between 86.396 and 140.946). These findings indicate that the motivation of postsecondary students toward physical activity significantly influences their behaviors, including screen time and 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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