Perceived variety, psychological needs satisfaction and exercise-related well-being

Sylvester, Standage, Dowd, Martin, Sweet, Beauchamp · Psychology & Health · 2014 · health-psychology · 10.1080/08870446.2014.907900 · record Sylvester2014-perceived-variety-psychological-needs-satisf
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. method is recorded as prospective-observational-survey rather than one of the nine listed labels because none of them fits and the paper explicitly denies being an experiment; the label is taken verbatim from the paper's own phrase "Using a prospective observational design". (The corpus already contains comparable out-of-list values such as prospective-cohort-study and retrospective-survey.) The study has a second, instrument-building component - a three-step item development, focus group and expert review process producing the 5-item PVE questionnaire - so claim type could arguably be method; prediction was chosen because the stated primary purpose and the abstract's headline result are both predictive. Replication status is set to replicated on the strength of the paper's own explicit statement that its finding is consistent with Sheldon and Lyubomirsky's (2012) conclusion, i.e. it replicates that effect in a new (exercise) context; the novel part - variety adding variance beyond the three needs - is itself untested. Source is pdftext with line numbers and running heads interleaved, so several limitation sentences in the Discussion are split across page furniture; the four quoted above are contiguous and were substring-verified.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
autonomy 8 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 6 concept tags on this paper, all 6 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 4 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

perceived variety psychological needs satisfaction felt variety variety support Competence Relatedness the instrument is built in three declared steps - item development, focus groups, and expert review - used to develop AND refine the items rather than only to produce them the focus groups use a modified retrospective think-aloud protocol, whose stated purpose is to understand how members of the target population INTERPRET and respond to the items the refinement has a STOPPING RULE rather than a fixed number of rounds: transcripts are coded by constant comparison for places where a participant raised concern with an item, and the cycle repeats after each group until no new suggestions emerge latent variable regression is chosen over multiple regression for a stated reason: multiple regression assumes the variables are measured without error, and the authors say that assumption would produce biased estimates here the chi-square test is deliberately not relied on alone, because a non-significant chi-square is called unrealistic, so supplementary indices are examined too - with separate numerical bands DESIGNATED for good fit and for excellent fit discriminant validity is given a numerical criterion rather than an impression: the average variance extracted for a construct must exceed the SQUARED CORRELATION between it and any other construct, alongside stated floors for loadings and composite reliability relative importance among predictors is decided by an index with a cut-off DERIVED from the number of predictors rather than chosen - one over twice the predictor count, which in this analysis makes the threshold 0.13 THE KEY TEST IS BUILT AS A COMPETING MODEL, NOT A CORRELATION: a three-factor structure is fitted specifically to see whether the new construct is empirically synonymous with one of the three established needs, and the authors state in advance what result would count against their own claim variety basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) composite reliability Relative Pratt Index exercise-related positive affect exercise-related subjective vitality autonomy regression latent variable regression (LVR) exploratory factor analysis EFA analysis confirmatory factor analysis confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) weighted least squares estimation weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimation chi-squared model fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) composite reliability and average variance extracted average variance extracted average variance extracted (AVE) relative importance index oblique factor rotation Geomin rotation (to produce an oblique solution survey

Method, as described: prospective-observational-survey

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.907900. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 6 · content_tags 36 · controls 1 · limitations 6 · mechanisms 8 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 1 of 2 relations here carries that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	perceived variety in exercise and exercise-related well-being Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	survey Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: survey	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the instrument is built in three declared steps - item development, focus groups, and expert review - used to develop AND refine the items rather than only to produce them	`mechanisms[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the focus groups use a modified retrospective think-aloud protocol, whose stated purpose is to understand how members of the target population INTERPRET and respond to the items	`mechanisms[1]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the refinement has a STOPPING RULE rather than a fixed number of rounds: transcripts are coded by constant comparison for places where a participant raised concern with an item, and the cycle repeats after each group until no new suggestions emerge	`mechanisms[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latent variable regression is chosen over multiple regression for a stated reason: multiple regression assumes the variables are measured without error, and the authors say that assumption would produce biased estimates here	`mechanisms[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the chi-square test is deliberately not relied on alone, because a non-significant chi-square is called unrealistic, so supplementary indices are examined too - with separate numerical bands DESIGNATED for good fit and for excellent fit	`mechanisms[4]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discriminant validity is given a numerical criterion rather than an impression: the average variance extracted for a construct must exceed the SQUARED CORRELATION between it and any other construct, alongside stated floors for loadings and composite reliability	`mechanisms[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relative importance among predictors is decided by an index with a cut-off DERIVED from the number of predictors rather than chosen - one over twice the predictor count, which in this analysis makes the threshold 0.13	`mechanisms[6]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE KEY TEST IS BUILT AS A COMPETING MODEL, NOT A CORRELATION: a three-factor structure is fitted specifically to see whether the new construct is empirically synonymous with one of the three established needs, and the authors state in advance what result would count against their own claim	`mechanisms[7]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	The design is non-experimental, so no causal inference is licensed; experiments are needed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any causal reading: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS WILL BE NECESSARY IN FUTURE RESEARCH TO EXAMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES ... RELATES TO CHANGES IN EXERCISE-RELATED WELL-BEING	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Variety was assessed only at the contextual level. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the level at which the finding holds: assessments of perceived variety were operationalised AT THE CONTEXTUAL LEVEL only	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The results say nothing about acute/episodic effects of perceived variety or about global life-level effects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: acute and global claims: THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY DO NOT PROV[ide evidence] about episodic effects or life-level outcomes	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The factor structure was verified on the same sample used to derive it, only at a different time point. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the factor structure itself: THE USE OF THE SAME SAMPLE TO VERIFY THE FACTOR STRUCTURE (ALBEIT AT DIFFERENT TIME POINTS) AND RESULTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Whether the new construct is distinct from the three established needs, or subsumed by them, was an open question this study set out to examine rather than assume. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: perceived variety as an established separate need: the paper examines whether it is distinct from or subsumed by competence, relatedness and autonomy	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The construct it is measured alongside has been operationalised inconsistently in the literature, sometimes as a single latent variable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: comparisons with other needs-satisfaction studies: the paper notes the construct has at times been operationalised as a single latent variable, and tests a one-factor model for that reason	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	the trimmed item pool was reviewed by three people with expertise in instrument development and in the exercise domain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the items measure something other than the construct they are named for - expert content review is the check on that before any data is collected · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	perceived variety Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived variety	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	psychological needs satisfaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: psychological needs satisfaction	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	felt variety Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: felt variety	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	variety support Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variety support	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	Competence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Competence	`concepts[4]`	0.9	the paper's words
concepts	Relatedness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Relatedness	`concepts[5]`	0.9	the paper's words
senses	variety - the general stipulated definition: the pursuit and experience of diverse activities, behaviours and opportunities in one's social milieu Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	variety - the narrower sense used in this study, which explicitly admits simple, mundane and conventional experiences and so is not sensation-seeking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	`felt variety` / `variety support` - TWO TERMS COINED IN ONE SENTENCE TO PREVENT A CONFLATION, WITH THE REASON STATED. `For the sake of conceptual clarity Quotation withheld` The pre-existing literature had one word, `variety`, doing both jobs - an experience and an affordance - and the split is announced as a methodological requirement rather than discovered. The paper then measures only the first. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	`competence` / `relatedness` / `autonomy` - THREE NEEDS DEFINED BY A SINGLE `refers to` EACH, AND ALL THREE ARE ATTRIBUTED. Every definition ends in a citation to Deci & Ryan; the paper is importing a vocabulary intact rather than building one, which is the opposite move to `felt variety` two pages earlier. The same article both borrows a settled partition and coins a new one, and the writing does not mark the difference. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	replicates → Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012), conclusion that perceptions of variety directly predict well-being Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Kahn and Ratner (2005) and Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012), definition of variety Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	perceived variety —distinct-from→ psychological needs satisfaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the paper EXAMINED 'the extent to which' perceived variety is distinct; stated as a question. also in: perceived variety · psychological needs satisfaction	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	felt variety —distinct-from→ variety support Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'distinguish between' is the differentiation cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested rather than merely accepted. Weight 1.0 - the paper does not hedge the distinction, it requires it. also in: felt variety · variety support	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	exploratory factor analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exploratory factor analysis	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confirmatory factor analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confirmatory factor analysis	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	weighted least squares estimation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: weighted least squares estimation	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	model fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: model fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI)	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	composite reliability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: composite reliability	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	average variance extracted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: average variance extracted	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	relative importance index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relative importance index	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	oblique factor rotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: oblique factor rotation	`content_tags.statistics[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Perceived variety together with competence, relatedness and autonomy measured at Time 1 explained 37.2% of the variance in exercise-related positive affect six weeks later. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The same four predictors explained 33.1% of the variance in exercise-related subjective vitality. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	For exercise-related negative affect, autonomy was the only statistically significant predictor; perceived variety did not predict it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	A four-factor structure that keeps perceived variety separate from competence, relatedness and autonomy fitted the data better than one-factor or three-factor structures. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	None of the five perceived-variety items cross-loaded onto the competence, relatedness or autonomy subscales at the \|0.30\| threshold. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Perceived variety in exercise is empirically distinct from, and not subsumed by, perceived competence, relatedness and autonomy. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	A supplementary test found no significant curvilinear relationship between perceived variety and positive affect, negative affect or subjective vitality. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors state that the observational design prevents any causal claim about variety and well-being. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variety Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variety	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	felt variety Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: felt variety	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: basic psychological needs theory (BPNT)	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	composite reliability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: composite reliability	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Relative Pratt Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Relative Pratt Index	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	exercise-related positive affect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exercise-related positive affect	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	exercise-related subjective vitality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exercise-related subjective vitality	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	perceived variety Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived variety	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	competence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: competence	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	relatedness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relatedness	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	autonomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: autonomy	`content_tags.variables[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	N = 507 — community adults who completed the baseline survey Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	six weeks — interval between the two identical online questionnaire administrations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	13.5% — variance in exercise-related negative affect explained by variety plus the three needs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	19.76% — share of the explained variance in positive affect attributable to perceived variety (Relative Pratt Index) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	27.02% — share of the explained variance in subjective vitality attributable to perceived variety, against 37.70% for competence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	χ2 (758) = 1746.98, p < .001, CFI = .974, TLI = .972 — fit statistics for the latent variable regression model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	.97 — ordinal composite reliability of the perceived variety scores Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.