Orchids at the Gym: Investigating Relationships Among Sensory Processing Sensitivity, Preferred Physical Activity Environments, and Physical Activity Self-Efficacy in University Students in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Summary Because the personality trait of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) enhances individuals’ ability to notice subtle environmental details, it often affects individuals’ preferred environments to engage in behaviours, and may also influence self-efficacy to overcome environmental barriers and perform these behaviours. One specific behaviour of interest is physical activity (PA), which leads to a variety of physical and mental health benefits. However, many environmental barriers to PA exist, especially among university students in Canada, which is the population this study will focus on. This study hypothesizes that perceptions about the suitability of PA environments, as well as PA-specific self-efficacy, will be influenced by the SPS trait in Ontario university students. The primary objective of this study is to investigate whether relationships exist between SPS level and various PA-related environmental preferences (e.g., social setting, location, noise levels) of Ontario undergraduate university students. As a secondary objective, this project aims to explore whether a relationship exists between these students’ SPS levels and their PA-specific barriers self-efficacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".