Identifying Conceptual Attributes of Physical Activity Maintenance Among Adults with Physical Disability: Preliminary Results of a Configurative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Evidence around physical activity (PA) maintenance remains limited due to the inconsistent conceptualization of the term maintenance, as well as a limited understanding as to what supports PA maintenance, especially in a physical disability context. The purpose of this configurative review is to explore how PA maintenance is described or assessed, and to identify repeated characteristics that could be identified as conceptual attributes of PA maintenance within the physical disability population. Methods: This configurative review consists of a two-stage iterative literature search. The first stage is a review of known articles within PA maintenance literature. Content of the articles are examined to identify key constructs or characteristics of PA maintenance. The second stage is a systematic search, guided by the literature reviewed in the first stage with a focus on physical disability. Results: Stage one of the literature search yielded 11 articles. Preliminary results identified that maintenance is characterized by consistent volume of behaviour and is attributed to self-regulation, self-efficacy, PA identity, enjoyment or satisfaction with PA, and a stable physical and social environment. Stage two will expand upon the search of maintenance attributes with a focus on physical disability. Discussion: The identified attributes from stage one are mainly social-cognitive in nature. The stage two search may need to expand to identify if social and physical environment and policy factors exist to support PA maintenance. The outcomes of this review will serve as guidance for future research to operationalize and evaluate PA maintenance among adults with physical disability.
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 | 0.041 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".