The effects of a daily, 6-week exergaming curriculum on balance in fourth grade children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balance is an essential component of movement and is critical in the ability to participate in physical activity. Developing an exergaming curriculum for schools has the potential to improve balance or postural stability in children. In this study, a purposely-built exergaming center in an elementary school was used to test fourth grade students with a specially designed exergaming curriculum oriented toward improving postural stability. The program was implemented over a 6-week period, 34 min per day, 4–5 days per week. Two control groups were used: (1) a physical education (PE) class geared toward agility, balance, and coordination (ABC) improvement, and (2) a typical PE curriculum class. Exergaming students improved their postural stability significantly over a 6-week period compared to those in the typical PE class. Improvements in postural stability were also evident in the ABC class. Postural stability in the girls was better than the boys in all pre- and post-intervention tests. This study demonstrates that exergaming is a practical resource in the PE class to improve postural stability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it