Self-Defined Gender Identities and Physical Activity Among Men and Women in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study how self-perceptions of masculinity and femininity are associated with physical activity levels among men and women in Europe. METHODS: We analyzed data from the European Social Survey conducted between 2023 and 2024 (n = 37,675). Perceptions of masculinity and femininity were measured using a self-rating scale ranging from "0 = not at all masculine/feminine" to "6 = very masculine/feminine." Multilevel regressions were used to estimate the number of days exercised in the past week. RESULTS: Variations in physical activity were greater within each gender, depending on perceived masculine and feminine traits, than between men and women. Overall, women reported exercising 3.21 days in the past week (95% CI, 3.21-3.22), while men reported 3.41 days (95% CI, 3.40-3.42). Women who identified as very masculine reported the highest exercise frequency (3.55; 95% CI, 3.45-3.64). The lowest was observed among women with low perceived femininity (2.74; 95% CI, 2.60-2.88). Among men, the highest was observed among those with moderate perceived femininity (3.53; 95% CI, 3.51-3.56), while the lowest was among those with low perceived masculinity (2.96; 95% CI, 2.50-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: Men who perceived moderate levels of femininity and women who perceived moderate to high levels of masculinity showed the highest levels of physical activity. Individuals performing and expressing gender identities may be a motivating factor for physical activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".