The LiiNK Project®: Comparisons of Recess, Physical Activity, and Positive Emotional States in Grades K-2 Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the physical activity patterns and emotional states differences among elementary school students at two private schools with differently structured school days. Students at one school received the LiiNK Project® pilot intervention, which included an additional two 15-minute recess breaks (unstructured outdoor play) throughout the school day and a 15-minute character development lesson three to four times weekly. Students at the comparison school received only one 30-minute recess daily and no additional character development curriculum. Grades K-2 children from two schools (N=262) wore pedometers for one school week and were observed for emotional expressions during recess. A univariate ANOVA revealed that intervention school students took significantly more steps on average than comparison school students, F(1, 260)=0.784, p<0.0001. Significant interactions were found for average number of steps between school and grade, F(2, 250)=4.298, p<0.05, school and gender, F(1, 250)=4.660, p<0.05, and grade and gender, F(2, 250)=6.919, p<0.001. Another univariate ANOVA revealed that during recess, intervention school students displayed significantly higher percentages of positive emotions than comparison school children, F(1, 52)=15.332, p<0.0001 and significantly lower percentages of not-positive emotions than comparison school students, F(1, 52)=13.900, p<0.0001. Overall, K-2 students who received multiple recesses and a character curriculum called Positive Action were significantly more active during the school day and displayed higher percentages of positive emotions on the playground than comparison school students.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".