MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525016472 · doi:10.1123/jtpe.27.3.416

A Health Passport to Promote Children’s Regular Practice of Physical Activity Outside of School

2008· article· en· W1525016472 on OpenAlexaff
Mireille Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching in Physical Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical educationObservational studyPsychologyClass (philosophy)Physical activityQualitative researchAccountabilityMathematics educationPedagogyContent analysisMedical educationMedicineSociologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the existing ecological studies have been conducted during class instructional time. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe (a) how students (N = 102; grade 2–4) engaged in a strategy named Health Passport taking place mainly outside of school time and (b) how four physical education teachers held students accountable for their involvement in physical activity during a long period of time (3–7 months). An inductive approach guided the data analysis, based on observational notes, interviews, and the content of the students’ Health Passport. The results indicated that children displayed five different profiles of involvement in the completion of the tasks related to their passport. Physical education teachers chose to trust students’ self-management capacity instead of using a formal evaluation to hold them accountable. The experiment of the Health Passport showed that physical education teachers can put together and implement accountability strategies to support students’ regular practice of physical activity at home.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.420 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching in Physical EducationSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207