The Role and Importance of Physical Literacy in Athlete Development and Physical Education:<BR>A Case Study of Canada and Its Applicability in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article was to introduce the role and importance of physical literacy in Canadian Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) and physical education, and to consider the applicability of physical literacy in Japanese athlete development and physical education. Physical literacy can be described as “the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life”. The concept is recognized as the foundation for LTAD. However, the effectiveness of LTAD and physical literacy have not been made clear because there has been no concrete measurement. On the other hand, in a physical education setting, recent studies have recommended the assessment of outcomes of physical education by the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL). If the reliability and validity of CAPL is confirmed, further studies are expected to procced in the fields of LTAD and physical education. In conclusion, there are a lot of research subjects within LTAD and physical education settings, while the attention to physical literacy is increasing. Therefore, the applicability of physical literacy in Japanese athlete development and physical education needs to be considered with careful attention to future research trends. In addition, the discussion on sharing the goal of developing physical literacy between athlete development and physical education is one of the important issues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".