Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Motivation in Police Cadets: A Self-Determination Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have highlighted the importance of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) for the health and performance of law enforcement officers. Nevertheless, a considerable proportion of officers still fail to engage in any LTPA. There is a clear need to identify correlates of physical activity among this specific occupational group to help the design of workplace physical activity interventions. Rooted in the self-determination theory, this study seeks to assess the LTPA level of police cadets and examine its relationship with the different regulatory forms of motivation. In this cross-sectional study, 188 police cadets completed a survey assessing their LTPA level and motivational regulation for physical activity. On average, police cadets reported 395 ± 192 minutes/week of physical activity. Only 12 participants (6.4%) reported physical activity levels lower than the usually recommended minimum levels of 150 minutes/week. Overall, autonomous forms of regulation were by far the most endorsed by police cadets. Finally, LTPA was positively associated with intrinsic regulation (rs = 0.46), identified regulation (rs = 0.30), and introjected regulation (rs = 0.20). To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a theoretical framework to assess the relationship between LTPA and motivation in police cadets. Our results suggest that police cadets are highly active and mainly driven to engage in LTPA through autonomous motivations. The present study highlights the importance of fostering autonomous regulation for physical activity throughout the training of cadets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".