MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981527206

Enjoyment and self-efficacy for physical activity as mediators of the friendship network and children's physical activity

2018· article· en· W6981527206 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolid-state spectroscopy and crystallography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityFriendshipPerceptionMotor activitySocial activity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Youth Physical Activity Promotion (YPAP) model proposes youth physical activity (PA) as determined by predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors. Consistent with the YPAP model, this study examined whether enjoyment and barrier self-efficacy for PA mediate associations between aspects of the friendship network and pedometer-measured PA in grade five children, and differences by gender. Participants were grade five students participating in a school in the Alberta Project Promoting active Living and healthy Eating in Schools (APPLE Schools) in 2013. Students wore piezo-electric time-stamped pedometers for nine consecutive days, nominated up to 10 close friends in their school and grade, and completed survey questions on enjoyment of PA, barrier self-efficacy for PA, and social support for PA from friends. Ego-network variables were created from the friendship nominations, including friend PA and social status (i.e., number of incoming friendships). Using structural equation modeling we observed friend support for PA, social status, and friend PA to be directly associated with PA in males and enjoyment to mediate the association between friend support and ego PA. Only friend PA was directly associated with PA in females with no identified mediators. This research provides support for the utility of the peer influence (reinforcing factor) and enjoyment (predisposing factor) components of the YPAP model in the context of children's PA and suggest that friends are important influence agents on the PA of children in late childhood.Acknowledgments: We thank all of the students, parents and schools for their participation in the APPLE Schools evaluation, and the evaluation assistants and school health facilitators for their contributions to data collection. Thank you to Wendy Davis and Erin Faught for their work in coordinating the evaluation, Pamela Bailey for organizing logistics, and Connie Lu for data management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolid-state spectroscopy and crystallographyFrench-language works237,207