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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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