Physical literacy: why should we embrace this construct?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this editorial, we provide a brief explanation of the physical literacy construct and its potential to contribute to the education, safety and overall development of a healthy life for the full lifespan. Although there has been a significant focus on teaching the competence component of being physically active, there has been a lack of focus on teaching people the confidence, desire, motivation, enjoyment and social benefits of physical activity.1–3 Therefore, we challenge the sports medicine and health-related professions to embrace and implement physical literacy’s holistic approach (both mind and body) to physical activity. The term physical literacy has been used in the academic literature since the 1930s1; however, it was not until the 1990s that the construct was re-introduced, embraced by several countries and gained significant attention.1–3 Following a number of iterations, the International Physical Literacy Association settled on the following definition: Physical Literacy is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life .4 Much of the available research thus far has focused on the sport and education sectors and specifically on the younger generation.1 3 5 Focusing on the younger generation can have a substantial impact on the health of future generations. However, as the definition indicates, physical literacy is …
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".