Physical Literacy of 8-12 Year Old Children in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical literacy is defined as the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engaging in physical activities for life. The purpose of the present study was to assess the physical literacy of children and youth living in Prince Edward Island, Canada, using preliminary results from the RBC Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL). METHODS: The CAPL includes tests in 4 domains: Motivation and Confidence (CSAPPA Questionnaire), Knowledge and Understanding (CAPL Physical Activity Questionnaire), Physical Competence (BMI, waist circumference, grip strength, PACER test, plank, sit and reach, and obstacle course), and Daily Behaviour (objectively measured steps/day and self-reported physical activity and sedentary behaviour). The scoring categories for each domain were: Beginning, Progressing, Achieving, or Excelling, with Achieving considered the minimum recommended score. RESULTS: Data were collected on 205 boys and 202 girls aged 8-12 years (mean: 10.7±1.1 years). The proportion of participants identified as Achieving or Excelling in each domain was as follows: Motivation and Confidence: 40%; Knowledge and Understanding: 66%; Daily Behaviour: 64%; Physical Competence: 39%; Overall Physical Literacy: 63%. CONCLUSIONS: Although two-thirds of participants were considered to have met the minimum recommended level of Knowledge, Daily Behaviour, and overall Physical Literacy, only a minority of children met the minimum recommended levels of Physical Competence and Motivation and Confidence. FUNDING: Research funding was provided by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute through the RBC Learn to Play project, delivered in partnership with ParticipACTION and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".