Evaluation of the physical literacy of children between 8 and 12-years of age in Calgary, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to examine the physical literacy (PL) of children in multiple education sectors in Calgary through the use of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL). Methods: 491 students (female; n=234, male; n=243), aged 8-12-years old (M=10.3, SD=1.5) from both the public school sector, as well as a charter school sector, were assessed using the CAPL. The CAPL tool is a reliable and validated measurement tool that assesses children in four domains, which make up the construct of physical literacy Age, gender and grade level were set as the independent variables. Children were scored in 4 separate domains, which were combined to yield a composite and overall physical literacy score. These domains included; 1) physical competence, 2) daily behaviour, 3) knowledge and understanding, and 4) motivation and confidence. Results: Children’s scores were ranked in to one of 4 interpretation score categories: beginning (lower PL scores), progressing, achieving or excelling (higher PL scores). 66% of the subjects fell within the Progressing category for physical competence; 57% fell within the Progressing category for the motivation and confidence domain; 38% fell within the Progressing category for the knowledge and understanding domain; and 59% fell within the Progressing category for the daily behaviour domain. Overall, 63% of children in this sample fell within the Progressing category for Physical Literacy. Conclusion: It appears that the majority of children in Calgary fall within the Progressing category in all but one of the domains as measured by the CAPL assessment tool, indicating that their PL scores were on the lower end of the interpretation score categories. Acknowledgments: Joel Barnes
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".