MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039006211 · doi:10.1177/1356336x07072678

Developmental coordination disorder and reported enjoyment of physical education in children

2007· article· en· W2039006211 on OpenAlexaff
John Cairney, John Hay, James Mandigo, Terrance J. Wade, Brent E. Faught, Andreas D. Flouris

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Physical Education Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityBrock UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhysical educationDevelopmental psychologyMotor coordinationPsychological interventionPhysical activity levelPerceptionPhysical activityScale (ratio)Physical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) are less likely to enjoy participating in physical education (PE) than children without motor coordination difficulties. However, no studies have attempted to quantify this relationship or examine potentially modifiable mediating variables. Using a large sample ( N = 590) of children (aged 9 to 14), we examine differences in the enjoyment of PE classes between children with DCD and those without using a standardized measure. We also examine whether differences in perceived adequacy towards physical activity, body fat and fitness explain why children with DCD score lower on this scale. Of all these measures, perceived adequacy accounts for the largest proportion of the effect of DCD on enjoyment. Interventions aimed at improving enjoyment of PE for children with DCD should target perceptions of their abilities with regard to physical pursuits.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Physical Education ReviewSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207