MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895509011 · doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5891-x

Physical literacy levels of Canadian children aged 8–12 years: descriptive and normative results from the RBC Learn to Play–CAPL project

2018· article· en· W2895509011 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark S. Tremblay, Patricia E. Longmuir, Joel D. Barnes, Kevin Belanger, Kristal D. Anderson, Brenda Bruner, Jennifer L. Copeland, Christine Delisle Nyström, Melanie Gregg, Nathan Hall, Angela M. Kolen, Kirstin N. Lane, Barbi Law, Dany J. MacDonald, Luc J. Martin, Travis J. Saunders, Dwayne P. Sheehan, Michelle Stone, Sarah J. Woodruff

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorMount Royal UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward IslandDalhousie UniversityUniversity of WinnipegSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of LethbridgeNipissing UniversityCamosun CollegeChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersMitacsPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsBiostatisticsCompetence (human resources)NormativeMedicineLiteracyPhysical educationPercentileDevelopmental psychologyDescriptive statisticsConfidence intervalDemographyPsychologyPublic healthSocial psychologyStatisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current physical literacy level of Canadian children is unknown. The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) Learn to Play – Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) project, which is anchored in the Canadian consensus statement definition of physical literacy, aimed to help establish the current physical literacy level of Canadian children. The CAPL was used to assess the physical literacy (and component domains: Daily Behaviour, Physical Competence, Knowledge and Understanding, and Motivation and Confidence) of Canadian children aged 8–12 years. Data were collected from 11 sites across Canada, yielding a sample of 10,034 participants (5030 girls). Descriptive statistics by age and gender were calculated and percentile distributions of physical literacy scores, including each domain and individual measure, were derived. The mean age of participants was 10.1 ± 1.2 years. Total physical literacy scores (out of 100) were on average 63.1 ± 13.0 for boys and 62.2 ± 11.3 for girls. For boys and girls respectively, domain scores were 19.9 ± 4.7 and 19.3 ± 4.1 (out of 32) for Physical Competence; 18.6 ± 7.9 and 18.5 ± 7.4 (out of 32) for Daily Behaviour; 12.7 ± 2.8 and 12.2 ± 2.6 (out of 18) for Motivation and Confidence; and 11.8 ± 2.8 and 12.2 ± 2.6 (out of 18) for Knowledge and Understanding. Physical Competence measures were on average 28.1 ± 8.4 cm (sit-and-reach flexibility), 33.5 ± 9.4 kg (grip strength, right + left), 23.4 ± 14.1 laps (Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run [PACER] shuttle run), 61.8 ± 43.8 s (isometric plank), 19.0 ± 3.8 kg/m2 (body mass index), 67.3 ± 10.8 cm (waist circumference), and 20.6 ± 3.9 out of 28 points for the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA), with scores for boys higher than girls and older children higher than younger children for grip strength, PACER, plank, and CAMSA score. Girls and younger children had better scores on the sit-and-reach flexibility than boys and older children. Daily pedometer step counts were higher in boys than girls (12,355 ± 4252 vs. 10,779 ± 3624), and decreased with age. These results provide the largest and most comprehensive assessment of physical literacy of Canadian children to date, providing a “state of the nation” baseline, and can be used to monitor changes and inform intervention strategies going forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207