MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130300216 · doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-26

Gender, perceived competence and the enjoyment of physical education in children: a longitudinal examination

2012· article· en· W2130300216 on OpenAlexafffund
John Cairney, Matthew Kwan, Scott Velduizen, John Hay, Steven R. Bray, Brent E. Faught

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologyLongitudinal studyPsychological interventionCohortPhysical educationSocial psychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The current study examined associations between gender, perceived athletic competence, and enjoyment of physical education (PE) class over time in a cohort of children enrolled in grade four (ages 9 or 10) at baseline (n = 2262). METHODS: We assessed each student 5 times over a period of 2 years. We used mixed effects modeling to examine change over time in enjoyment of PE. RESULTS: Enjoyment of PE declined among girls but remained constant among boys. Higher levels of perceived competence were associated with higher PE enjoyment. A 3-way interaction between gender, competence, and time revealed that PE enjoyment was lowest and declined most markedly among girls with low perceived athletic competence. Among boys with low competence, enjoyment remained at a consistently low level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that lower perceived athletic competence is associated with low enjoyment of PE, and, among girls, with declining enjoyment. Findings suggest that interventions in a PE context that target perceived competence should be considered in future work.

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations307
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivitySame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207