Becoming Physically Literate for Life: Embracing the Functions, Forms, Feelings and Flows of Alternative and Mainstream Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore a conceptual shift from mechanism, the dominant ‘body-as-machine’ (Tinning, 2010) paradigm, to vitalism, the philosophical phenomenological tenets of physical literacy (Whitehead, 2010) upon which the curriculum of physical education in Canada is based, within the context of an alternative physical education program. Method: A motion-sensitive phenomenological approach (Lloyd & Smith, 2006b; 2015), conceptually framed by the Function2Flow (F2F) model, was conducted with a sample of N = 153 students from seven different schools in Ottawa (Canada) who booked the JungleSport climbing program of their own accord. Sources of information included phenomenological observations, small group interviews, and journal entries. Exemplars of two in depth student experiences are featured in this article. Results & Discussion: The phenomenological analysis of the climbing experiences, in addition to the F2F curriculum support tools that were developed, provide practical and philosophical pathways for understanding how we may broaden assessments of learning in physical education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".