Want to do exercise and do exercise: the role of personal and psychological factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A maioria da população mundial é fisicamente inativa ou ativa de forma insuficiente, não beneficiando da prática de exercício físico-EF. Este estudo analisou as diferenças psicológicas em função da regularidade de EF e os preditores da prática de EF. Foram incluídos 454 praticantes de Musculação, Cardio-Fitness e Atividades de Ritmo de uma academia desportiva em Portugal. Avaliaram-se variáveis pessoais e psicológicas dos praticantes. Os resultados indicaram: (a) praticantes mais regulares de EF apresentaram maior perceção de comportamento anterior de EF, maior gosto pelo EF e maior bem-estar no EF; (b) os preditores da prática de EF (e.g., intenção de prática de EF, comportamento anterior de EF e comportamento efetivo de EF) foram ser do sexo masculino, maior gosto pelo EF, maior perceção de esforço, maior bem-estar e menor fadiga no EF. Concluindo, os praticantes regulares beneficiam mais do EF e os fatores pessoais e psicológicos explicam a prática de EF.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".