Physical activity policy and legislation in North American schools: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, 7% of youth are reaching recommended levels of physical activity (PA; AHKC, 2011). One way PA can be promoted is through government mandated school policy legislation (Schmid et al., 2006). The current study is a review that examines the evaluation of school-based PA policies for youth over the past 10 years. Articles included had to meet the following criteria: be an original research study published in an academic journal in English, examine or be related to PA behaviour, apply to a youth population in school setting, highlight a law, bill or policy reflective of PA based on government initiatives, and involve the evaluation of this legislated policy. After searching five databases, PubMed (625 hits), Medline (184 hits), PsycInfo (23 hits), CINAHL (107 hits), and Sport Discus (571 hits), 12 articles were selected for inclusion. All policies came from the United States; 7 highlighted the federal Children Reauthorization Act and 5 highlighted state level policies for safe routes to schools, PA only initiatives, or PA and other initiatives (e.g., nutrition). Eight articles evaluated policy implementation, 3 examined policy implementation and impact, and 1 article considered only policy impact. Although at least 162 bills have been enacted recently in the U.S. related directly to physical education (Eyler et al., 2010), few policies are evaluated for their actual impact in the academic literature. Implications for policy makers and researchers will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".