“A step to building positive gym culture: Exploring gender and task self-efficacy differences in perceptions of a gym environment”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University is a pivotal point in life for physical activity (PA) behaviour because decisions made at this time may lead to an active life in later adulthood, or transition to a sedentary lifestyle. The purpose of this study was to identify differences between men and women with high and low task self-efficacy (SE) in their perceptions of how environmental factors (ex. Others flexing/posing, mirrors) within a gym influence their use. To test this, 703 university students (543 women; 160 men) provided responses to an online survey including questions regarding demographics, their exercise task-SE, and how environmental factors influenced their gym use. Differences on the 33 environmental factors were tested using 2X2 ANOVAs. A significant main effect for gender (all p’s < .05, η;2 = .01 to .04) was found for 18 environmental factors, and a significant main effect for task self-efficacy (all p’s < .05, η;2 = .01 to .05) was found for 27 environmental factors. Additionally, a significant interaction effect was found for one environmental factor (Loud people; F(1, 699) = 8.09, p < .01, η;2 = .01). Taken together, our results show men with high task-SE generally had a more positive perception of physical and social environmental factors compared to men with low task-SE and women. Whereas women with low task-SE generally reported more negative perceptions of environmental factors. The results suggest targeting people’s task-SE (especially women) may be important for enhancing perceptions of the gym environment and promoting subsequent use of the facility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".