Mindset and physical activity: Examining the effects of physical activity history, physical activity guideline knowledge, and physical activity social comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research is emerging illustrating the predictive effects of psychological mindsets on physical activity. The results of one study revealed that those who held a mindset that their physical activity was adequate for health, while controlling for current activity, reported more activity (Zahrt & Crum, 2020). Given mindset’s potential future importance, the first purpose was to replicate the positive relationship between perceived activity adequacy mindset and activity (Zahrt & Crum, 2020). The second purpose was to examine three factors that might inform individuals’ perceptions of whether their activity was adequate for health benefits – activity history, activity guideline knowledge, and activity social comparison. Participants completed two online surveys seven days apart. The first assessed demographic information, physical activity history, physical activity guideline knowledge, perceived activity adequacy mindset, and physical activity social comparison (n = 187). The second assessed current physical activity over the previous week (n = 135). Path analysis revealed that perceived activity adequacy mindset was positively associated with current physical activity. In terms of factors that might inform mindset, physical activity social comparison was directly, and physical activity history and physical activity guideline knowledge were indirectly associated with perceived activity adequacy mindset. The results provide additional evidence for a relationship between perceived activity adequacy mindset perceptions and physical activity as well as reveal some potential direct and indirect antecedents of perceived activity adequacy mindset. If replicated using an experimental design, recognition that mindset may influence physical activity engagement may be instructive in the formulation of future physical activity promotion materials.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".