MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562333120

Keeping Adolescent Girls Engaged in Physical Activity

2016· article· en· W2562333120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePhysical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that adolescent girls (aged 12-15 years old) are experiencing a decline in physical activity. Research shows that adolescent girls are more likely to opt out of physical education programming when it is no longer mandated in schools (Landolfi, 2013; Statsistics Canada, 2011). The purpose of this study is to inquire how a sample of intermediate physical educators are eliciting greater participation from female students through formal and informal opportunities in physical activity. The main research question guiding this research project is: How is a sample of intermediate physical education teachers eliciting greater participation from female students in formal and informal opportunities in physical activity? Subsidiary questions include: What do these teachers observe as outcomes from these students’ participation in physical activity? What are these teachers’ perspectives on why adolescent female students may be reluctant to participate in physical activities in school? This research is a qualitative study where three educators were chosen to take part in a 45 min semi-structured interview. The findings from this study are that positive teacher strategies in physical education classes such as: motivation, encouragement and modeling, can help increase student engagement, and foster self-efficacy in physical activity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207