Male adolescents' reasons for participating in physical activity, barriers to participation, and suggestions for increasing participation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored male adolescents' reasons for participating in moderate and vigorous physical activity, perceived barriers to moderate and vigorous physical activity, and suggestions as to what can be done to increase participation in physical activity. A total of 26 male 15- and 16-year-old adolescents participated in focus group sessions, which were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim; qualitative software facilitated data analysis. A constant comparison approach was used to inductively develop themes. It was found that participants engaged in physical activity for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Their perceived barriers to physical activity included both internal factors (individual characteristics, lower priority for physical activity, and involvement in technology-related activities) and external factors (the influence of peers and family, lack of time, and inaccessibility and cost of facilities). Participants suggested that physical activity be promoted more in the community and that an environment more supportive of physical activity be developed. Results suggest that a variety of strategies should be used to help male adolescents maintain or increase participation in moderate and vigorous 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".