Understanding the implementation of a daily physical activity program in elementary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With more than one-quarter of Canadian children considered overweight or obese (Active Healthy Kids Canada, 2013), there is little debate that reducing childhood obesity should be prioritized. A commonly accepted lifestyle change is increasing physical activity levels. As children spend the majority of their waking hours in school (Hills et al., 2007), a frequently utilized method for increasing physical activity is daily, structured programs during classroom instructional times. Though these programs have had some success, there is resistance to their implementation as the programs are perceived to detract from regular teaching time and academic achievement (Vazou et al., 2012), despite the fact that improvements in children’s aerobic fitness appears to result in higher academic achievement and cognitive control (Chaddock et al., 2011). Our purpose was to understand the benefits and challenges of one such daily physical activity program (20 minutes per day) in Ontario schools from a third-party perspective. Participants (N = 9) were university students who completed internships at elementary schools. These university students entered their assigned schools and taught daily physical activity to the students. Participants were interviewed before and after their internships, and asked about their perspectives on the benefits and challenges of daily physical activity in schools. Through inductive coding, several main themes emerged from the interviews related to daily physical activity benefits (e.g., increased activity, academic improvement, developing social skills), barriers (e.g., space, time, weather), and facilitators/recommendations (e.g., teacher education, formal structure, prioritization). Herein, we present these main themes, and discuss their potential implications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".