MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125461411 · doi:10.82308/10626

Determinants of disengagement of adolescent females in physical education: a grounded theory analysis

2010· book· en· W2125461411 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Natalie Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOsteoporosis Canada
KeywordsDisengagement theoryGrounded theoryPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologyGerontologyQualitative researchMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the key determinants that influence the disengagement of physical education participation among female adolescents. Harter's competence motivation theory was applied to initiate the study and guide the interview questions. Through self-identification, seven young females were asked to answer a series of open-ended questions pertaining to their high school physical education experience. Grounded theory was used as a methodological model. The following themes emerged from data analysis: (a) Social influences in physical education, (b) Teaching and Learning, (c) Perceived Competence, and (d) Out of School Environment. From these four themes determinants of disengagement included the teachers' lack of enthusiasm and caring, peers being unsupportive, a sport-based curriculum that was viewed as repetitious, lack of choice in activities, a competitive climate, negative perceptions towards physical education, peer comparison and a fear of embarrassment and humiliation. Results provide insight as to how curriculum designers and teachers can make high school physical education more appealing for all female students.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207