Exploring University-Based Physical Literacy Programming: Perspectives of Service Providers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy (PL) has become a prominent concept in education and sport, particularly within Canada. While the term PL has been used for two decades, many researchers still operationalize the construct differently. Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of those leading university-based PL programs in Canada. The objectives in this study were to gain insights into the: (1) approaches used for delivering PL programs; and (2) strengths/challenges of delivering university-based PL programs. Methods: Participants who were directly involved in PL programming at the post-secondary level were recruited for semi-structured one-on-one interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results/Discussion: Two main concepts were discovered: conceptualization and implementation. It became clear that the ideological origins of those developing and leading the programs played a crucial role in how PL is conceptualized. Lack of transparency in the theoretical underpinnings of PL has lead to differences in PL programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".