The Effect of Exercise on Life Engagement and Subjective Vitality: An Intercultural Study During The Covid-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to reveal the effect of exercise on life engagement and subjective vitality during the covid-19 pandemic period. A total of 1224 individuals ( Xage= 30.15±9.63), 438 females (X age= 29.20±9.57) and 786 males ( Xage= 30.68±9.63) from Turkey, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil and India participated in the study, which was conducted using a survey model. Of the participants, 483 were non-exercisers and 741 were exercisers. "Personal Information Form", "Life Engagement Scale", "Subjective Vitality Scale" were used as data collection tools. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and one-way MANOVA. According to the results of the study, it was revealed that there were significant differences in the life engagement and subjective vitality scores of those who exercised compared to those who did not exercise, and there was a significant difference in life engagement and subjective vitality scores in terms of countries (p<.05). Moreover, when the results were analyzed in terms of the country*exercise interaction, similarly significant differences were found (p<.05). The results of the study indicated that exercise participation positively affected life engagement and subjective vitality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".