MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489008500 · doi:10.26522/tl.v4i3.263

Exploring the Relationship Between Physical Education and Physical Activity

2008· article· en· W1489008500 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chunlei Lu, Amanda De Lisio

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching and Learning · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical educationPhysical activityQuality (philosophy)Function (biology)PsychologyMedical educationPedagogyMathematics educationMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lack of knowledge within the educational profession, related to physical activity and physical education, is jeopardizing the implementation of quality physical education at both elementary and secondary school levels. Despite the effort of the academic community to broaden the awareness of each concept, an alarming number of people within the educational profession still reference each term interchangeably (AAHPERD, 2008; Fishburne & Hickson, 2005). The purpose of the following paper is to re-examine the relationship between physical activity and physical education in an attempt to further progress the understanding of, and identify the appropriate function of, each within a teaching-learning environment. The paper will build on current literature involving the correlation between physical activity and physical education. Ultimately, by further clarifying the role of each, the paper can support every educator in the successful implementation of Daily Physical Activity (DPA) and a quality physical education program for every public school.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.395
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching and LearningSame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207