Running: How is it Taught and Evaluated in British Columbia Schools?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Running is a simple and inexpensive exercise to maintain cardiovascular health. We aimed to evaluate the incorporation of running within the curriculum in British Columbian schools to determine whether students are effectively taught how to run to maintain an active lifestyle.Methods All 60 superintendents representing the school districts in British Columbia were contacted. They gave written approval for our research team to send a survey to schools within their districts. Teacher and student perspectives on running in middle and high schools were collected.Results Teachers (n=63) and students (n=597) would like more information on proper running form and the cardiovascular benefits associated with this exercise. There is inconsistency in reporting medical conditions, and it is not clear how grading is distributed fairly among all students (p<0.05).Conclusion There is a lack of education in schools on running. Improvements to the incorporation of running within the physical and health education curriculum may enhance student enjoyment and in turn help reduce sedentary behaviours and associated comorbidities in the general population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".