MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068242192 · doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2013.02.002

The effects of a daily, 6-week exergaming curriculum on balance in fourth grade children

2013· article· en· W2068242192 on OpenAlexaff
Dwayne P. Sheehan, Larry Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)CurriculumPhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical educationPhysical activityBalance testPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations93
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health ScienceSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207