“I feel like it was hive mentality. Everyone's like a gym rat”: Introducing and Exploring the Concept of “Endorsement of Fitness Culture Norms”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While sociocultural scholars have proposed the concept of ‘fitness culture’ to represent sociocultural fitness norms (e.g., “no pain, no gain” rhetoric), the psychological endorsement of these norms have yet to be operationalized or explored. Drawing on the disordered eating literature, internalization and endorsement of normative fitness culture may contribute to maladaptive body, eating, and exercise attitudes and behaviours. As such, the purpose of the present study was to (i) characterize the endorsement of fitness culture norms, and (ii) explore the experiences of women who endorse these norms. Thirty self-identified women aged 18-35 (Mage= 25.4) were guided through a one-on-one semi-structured interview about their relationship to fitness that lasted approximately 1-2 hours. Using reflexive thematic analysis, the concept of endorsing fitness culture norms was defined as internalizing and upholding values of individualistic discipline, achievement orientation and hegemonic masculinity when engaging in fitness pursuits. The endorsement of fitness culture norms was associated with maladaptive eating and exercise behaviours, feelings of guilt and distress, internalization of the fit-ideal, and experiences of cognitive dissonance in relation to fitness-related beliefs and behaviours. Based on these accounts, endorsement of fitness culture norms seem to present a unique threat to women’s psychosocial health, and may have important implications for women’s psychological experiences with 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".