Object Control Skills Mediate the Relationship Between Neighborhood Vulnerability and Participation in Physical Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the influence of physical health and well-being vulnerability on participation in physical activities, and whether motor skill proficiency mediated this relationship. Kindergarten children ( n = 260) completed the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 and the Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment survey. A multivariate analysis of covariance was used to compare the motor skills and participation in physical activities of children in schools classified as more or less vulnerable. We also examined whether motor skill proficiency mediated the relationship between vulnerability status and participation. Children in neighborhoods with higher vulnerability demonstrated lower motor skill proficiency and participation. Object control skill proficiency mediated the relationship between vulnerability and participation. Children from more vulnerable schools started their school career with less developed motor skills and a narrower array of recreation participation. Children in vulnerable neighborhoods need more opportunities to master object controls skills and access recreational activities. Fortunately, motor skill proficiency among children considered ‘at risk’ is amenable to improvement and intervention early in the children’s school career may have a beneficial impact on children’s physical activity at school and beyond the school environment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".