An examination of adolescents’ perceptions of the school physical environment related to physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between an objective and perceived measure of the physical environment related to physical activity within a school setting. A self‐report questionnaire to assess the perceived physical environment was completed by 850 male and female students in four high schools in rural Alberta, Canada. Two researchers completed objective observations in the same four schools. The students were grouped as perceiving the school environment (a) accurately, (b) affording greater opportunities, or (c) providing fewer opportunities. Discriminant analysis revealed two significant functions which differentiated between the three groups based on variables associated with physical activity in youth (i.e., age, self‐efficacy, peer network, family network, and teacher relationship) and on activity level. The first discriminant function's canonical correlations showed that teacher relationship (.91) and activity level (.42) were most predictive of individuals who perceived more opportunities than assessed in the objective measure. The second function's canonical correlations found that peer network (.63), self‐efficacy (.41), and activity level (‐.37) were the best at predicting individuals who perceived inaccurately. When examined by gender the discriminant analysis revealed only one significant function. For both females and males, this function's strongest predictors included teacher relationship and energy expenditure, while for males only, self‐efficacy and family network were also highly correlated. The discriminant analysis's model equation correctly classified 68.0% of the cases, 16.6% more cases than would be predicted by chance alone. Overall, the small mean difference score (0.37) between the three groups directs researchers to use either objective or perceived measures of the physical environment, as both should provide similar results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".