MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325226564 · doi:10.1177/1559827616640196

Fundamental Movement Skills and Health-Related Outcomes: A Narrative Review of Longitudinal and Intervention Studies Targeting Typically Developing Children

2016· review· en· W2325226564 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Bremer, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Lifestyle Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyIntervention (counseling)OverweightNarrative reviewMovement assessmentMotor skillPopulationDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedical educationPsychologyObesityNursingEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many children with typical development are highly sedentary, overweight/obese, and are deemed not ready for school at kindergarten entry. All of these concerns can be related to a lack of movement skill proficiency in this population. The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize the literature examining the impact of movement skills on 5 areas of overall health: physical activity, physical fitness, body composition, self-beliefs, and executive functioning. To gain an understanding of these relationships, only studies employing an experimental or observational longitudinal design were reviewed. Although the results were limited in the number of studies available, there is evidence that movement skill may have a positive influence on these broad domains of health both naturally over the course of development and through intervention. We recommend that a universal approach to movement skill development is warranted, given the range of benefits that stem from developing proficiency in these skills.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations121
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Lifestyle MedicineSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207