University-based physical literacy programming for children: Canadian community stakeholders’ recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Physical literacy' (PL) education-that is, teaching foundational skills, attitudes, behaviors and knowledge about lifelong involvements in physical activities, is an important aspect for health promotion among children. Universities have been playing a critical role by teaching future PL professionals. Additionally, various universities have offered university-based PL programming for neighborhood children as a way of public health promotion service and community engagement. However, this additional role of universities and the ways of promoting the quality of this type of health promotion service programming have not been investigated in the current research literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the practicable strategies to enhance the quality of university-based PL programming for children from the perspectives of community stakeholders. Overall, 24 community stakeholders who held professional positions that are related to PL education participated in a 90-min focus group interview. This grounded theory study identified that university-based PL programming for children should be (i) inclusive, (ii) collaborative, (iii) welcoming and (iv) responsive. Practical suggestions and recommendations were also provided. This study has provided empirical knowledge to prioritize aspects for the future actions in planning and implementing university-based PL programming for children and informed for further cross-cultural comparisons amongst the perspectives of participants, university service providers and community stakeholders. The knowledge acquired from this research will also be translated to university service providers who operate similar type of health promotion service programming to the public.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".