School-Based Physical Activity Does Not Compromise Children's Academic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based physical activity intervention, Action Schools! BC (AS! BC), for maintaining academic performance in a multiethnic group of elementary children, and 2) to determine whether boys and girls' academic performance changed similarly after participation in AS! BC. METHODS: This was a 16-month cluster randomized controlled trial. Ten schools were randomized to intervention (INT) or usual practice (UP). One INT school administered the wrong final test, and one UP school graded their own test, so both were excluded. Thus, eight schools (six INT, two UP) were included in the final analysis. Children (143 boys, 144 girls) in grades 4 and 5 were recruited for the study. We used the Canadian Achievement Test (CAT-3) to evaluate academic performance (TotScore). Weekly teacher activity logs determined amounts of physical activity delivered by teachers to students. Physical activity was determined with the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C). Independent t-tests compared descriptive variables between groups and between boys and girls. We used a mixed linear model to evaluate differences in TotScore at follow-up between groups and between girls and boys. RESULTS: Physical activity delivered by teachers to children in INT schools was increased by 47 min x wk(-1) (139 +/- 62 vs 92 +/- 45, P < 0.001). Participants attending UP schools had significantly higher baseline TotScores than those attending INT schools. Despite this, there was no significant difference in TotScore between groups at follow-up and between boys and girls at baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSION: The AS! BC model is an attractive and feasible intervention to increase physical activity for students while maintaining levels of academic performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".