MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W136771812 · doi:10.1177/183693910302800409

Fundamental Movement Skills: Children's Perspectives

2003· article· en· W136771812 on OpenAlexaff
Beth Hands, Marie Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Early Childhood · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)PsychologyEarly childhoodEarly childhood educationDevelopmental psychologyPhysical activityPhysical educationProject commissioningMotor skillPedagogyPublishingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ample evidence exists about the importance of physical activity for developing and maintaining an active and healthy lifestyle. As many habits are formed when young, well-planned and effective movement programs specifically designed for young children are important. In this paper, the influence of a new teaching resource designed to support teachers in implementing a fundamental movement skill program on the children in the classes is presented using a case study approach. The case studies were constructed with teachers and children in a range of early childhood settings. The impact of the program on the children's level of confidence, knowledge of fundamental movement skills and personal physical activity level is presented. This information was gathered using direct observation methods, observation records and questionnaires. The findings indicated an increase in the children's physical activity levels, confidence and knowledge about fundamental movement skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of Early ChildhoodSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207