Children's physical activity and physical self-perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between physical self-perceptions and physical activity in Canadian school children aged 10-14 years. The sample consisted of 220 boys and 246 girls in grades 5-8. Physical activity was assessed by 7-day recall using the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children. Self-perceptions of physical conditioning, sports competence, strength, body appearance and general physical self-worth were measured by the Physical Self-Perception Profile (PSPP). We found that boys were more physically active than girls and had higher perceptions of sport competence and strength. All PSPP scales were significantly correlated with physical activity in both boys and girls. Structural equation modelling procedures found the hierarchical PSPP model provided a good fit to the observed data, with little evidence of differences between the sexes. Analysis of five alternative structural models of the relationship between the PSPP and physical activity found the most parsimonious model to have significant pathways from both physical conditioning and sport skills to physical activity. Models for the sample as a whole, for boys and for girls were similar, accounting for an R2 of 0.27-0.29 for physical activity. Our results demonstrate that physical self-perceptions, especially physical conditioning and sport skills, are significant correlates of activity in this population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".