A secondary analysis of the impact of university students’ primary exercise location on their perception of environmental factors within the gym
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University is a transitionary stage of life whereby many students decrease their activity level despite reduced barriers of an on-campus fitness facility. Previous research has demonstrated that environmental factors within the gym either positively or negatively influence exercise facility use, with individuals of varying self-efficacy (SE) levels differing in their perception of environmental factors. The purpose of this study was to compare university students who exercise in different locations in their perceptions of environmental factors within the gym environment, controlling for task SE. University students (n = 667) responded to an online cross-sectional survey regarding their choice of exercise location (68% established facility; 19% home; 13% no exercise), level of task SE (1 = low, 10 = high), and perception of 33 physical and social environmental factors (e.g., over crowdedness, presence of muscular individuals; -2 = completely negative influence, 2 = completely positive influence). From the one-way ANCOVAs, 15 significant differences were observed between individual’s choice of location (η;2 = .01-.04), after controlling for task SE, which was a significant covariate for 28 environmental factors (η;2 = .00-.08). In general, those who exercised at an established gym location reported the most positive perceptions of environmental factors (e.g., presence of knowledgeable individuals), with the greatest differences observed between established locations and home, and fewest between home and no exercise. These findings demonstrate perceptions of environmental factors vary by choice of exercise location, which may be valuable when determining factors that contribute to if and where students choose to exercise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".