Critical Considerations for Physical Literacy Policy in Public Health, Recreation, Sport, and Education Agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Charter for Physical Education, Physical Activity, and Sport clearly states that vested agencies must participate in creating a strategic vision and identify policy options and priorities that enable the fundamental right for all people to participate in meaningful physical activity across their life course. Physical literacy is a rapidly evolving concept being used in policy making, but it has been limited by pre-existing and sometimes biased interpretations of the construct. The aim of this article is to present a new model of physical literacy policy considerations for key decision makers in the fields of public health, recreation, sport, and education. Internationally debated definitions of physical literacy and the wider construct of literacy were reviewed in order to establish common pillars of physical literacy in an applicable policy model. This model strives to be consistent with international understandings of what “physical literacy” is, and how it can be used to achieve established and developing public health, recreation, sport, and educative goals.
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 | 0.082 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".