Physical Literacy (Mis)understandings: What do Leading Physical Education Teachers Know About Physical Literacy?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy is a term and concept that has, in recent years, been gaining in both usage and popularity in many physical education (PE) contexts. However, discussion, writing, and understanding of physical literacy have been marked by uncertainty, confusion, or resistance. Since physical literacy can be found in several curricular documents and outcome statements, it would certainly be ideal for PE teachers to share a common understanding. This article reports on a qualitative case study in which 12 lead PE teachers from four Canadian provinces were interviewed, the purpose of which was to acquire knowledge about PE teachers’ understanding of physical literacy. Results suggest that these leaders are largely unable to articulate conceptions of physical literacy that are in line with contemporary perspectives. In light of these findings, a discussion about these physical literacy (mis)understandings is also offered.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it