MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820796724 · doi:10.14288/ce.v5i19.184236

Critical Analysis of Canadian Physical Education Curriculum

2013· article· en· W1820796724 on OpenAlex
Dianne Thomson, Lorayne Robertson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPhysical educationPolicy analysisGovernment (linguistics)Education policyPublic policySociologyOrder (exchange)LiteracyPolitical sciencePedagogyPublic relationsPublic administrationHigher educationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical education curriculum policies, like other government policies, are influenced by historical and societal contexts. This study reviews the literature on a range of approaches to physical education from traditional models to critical physical literacy, creates a policy analysis framework and uses it to examine Canadian Physical Education (PE) curriculum policies. The policy analysis framework and discourse analysis are combined to determine the dominant messages in Canadian PE policies and to determine relative areas of emphasis. The findings indicate that most policies include critical approaches in the policy rationale but the learning outcomes reflect primarily traditional models of physical education. This research is intended to encourage a national dialogue about PE policies in order to encourage a broader range of approaches, including more empowering approaches in PE curriculum policies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.427 · 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