Female Yoga Teachers’ Motivators for Teaching and Engaging in Yoga
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examined female yoga teachers’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and their motivational factors for teaching and engaging in yoga. Interviews guided by two Self-Determination Theory mini-theories, Organismic Integration Theory and Basic Psychological Needs Theory, were conducted with 20 female Canadian yoga teachers. Thematic analysis was used to examine their lived experiences. Participants emphasized freedom to teach authentically, confidence in themselves, feedback from students, and connecting with students as ways that teaching yoga lead to their need-fulfilment. Giving students choice, providing meaningful encouragement, challenging students, and collaborating with students were described as need-supportive techniques. Motivations for yoga engagement included fitness, social benefits, mental health, maintaining health, feeling of community, sense of identity, love, and curiosity. Motivations for yoga teaching included encouragement from others, financial reasons, idealization of the profession, sharing the benefits of yoga, building human connections, inspiration from other yoga teachers, integration of yoga teaching into their lifestyles, sense of purpose, and enjoyment of teaching yoga.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".