MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542279304

Bridging a gap in the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines through the Development of Youth Self-Regulation

2016· article· en· W2542279304 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bryce Barker, Tanya Halsall, Tanya Forneris, Michelle Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Physical activityPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychologyBridging (networking)Physical educationMedical educationSelf-efficacyApplied psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPedagogyMedicinePhysical therapyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity guidelines have become a regular part of the discussion in public health, education, and public policy. This paper examines an apparent oversight in the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines: the process by which adolescents develop the ability to self-regulate their physical activity participation. This article examines the PULSE program, a physical activity-based life skills intervention that could be used to assist youth to develop this capacity. A description and preliminary mixed methods evaluation of the PULSE program is provided. Results indicate that PA levels as well as self-regulation skills increased from pre-program to post-program. Furthermore, findings demonstrate that the youth attribute their increased competence to self-regulate PA participation to the experiences they had within the program. Recommendations are presented for facilitating the development of youth self-regulation skills in relation to PA and for the adaptation of the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex JournalSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207