Benefits of a group-based running session on feelings of energy and fatigue: No augmenting effect of green exercise during the defoliation season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial investigated the impact of a brief session of group-based running on feelings of energy and fatigue, comparing exercise in a local nature reserve versus an outdoor built environment, and a sedentary control condition. Sixty-six physically active university students participated, with 56 providing full data for each time point. Consistent with previous research, participants in both exercise groups reported significantly increased energy and decreased fatigue compared to those in the sedentary control group. However, the type of outdoor environment did not significantly influence the magnitude of improvements. Contrary to expectations, there was no significant difference in energy enhancement or fatigue mitigation between participants who jogged in a local nature reserve versus those who jogged on a cinder track in an urbanized area. The study discusses potential reasons for this, including seasonal variations in forest volatile organic compounds (FVOCs) concentrations, which may impact the psychological effects associated with forest environments. Further research is needed to better understand the complex relationship between exercise, environment, and feelings of energy/feelings of fatigue.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".