Orchids at the Gym: Investigating Connections Among Sensory Processing Sensitivity, Preferred Physical Activity Environments, and Physical Activity Self-Efficacy in Ontario University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) participation often declines at university. Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), a fairly common personality trait amplifying individuals’ emotional responses to their environments, may affect perceptions of university PA environments. This study aimed to investigate relationships between SPS and (1) PA-related environmental preferences, and (2) PA self-efficacy, in Ontario university students. Full-time undergraduates (n = 425) completed an online survey including demographics; the Highly Sensitive Person-12 Item Scale; physical activity context preferences; and the Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity Scale. Results indicated higher SPS was associated with lower PA self-efficacy; decreased preferences for competitive, team-based, and higher-volume PA environments; and increased preferences for PA that was structured, scheduled, low-cost, involved same-gender peers, had an adjustable level of difficulty, was not just about exercise, and could be performed at home or in a quiet environment. Results may inform university-based efforts to design PA-promoting environments for undergraduate students with different personality types.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".