Symposium presentaton #4: The relationship between age, gender, and physical measures with adequacy in and predilection for physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy is influenced by physical, behavioural, affective, and cognitive factors. Researchers are interested in relationships among these constituent factors. The purpose of this study was to investigate how age, gender, and physical competence components of physical literacy relate to a child's adequacy in and predilection for physical activity. A sample of 8,530 Canadian youth (50% girl) aged 8.0 to 12.9 years participated in the study. Participants completed the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) protocol, which assesses physical literacy in four domains: Physical Competence, Daily Behaviour, Motivation and Confidence, and Knowledge and Understanding. Regression analyses investigated the relationship between physical competence components of physical literacy and children's perceived adequacy and predilection toward physical activity. The variable most strongly associated with adequacy and predilection was the PACER shuttle run score. The PACER accounted for 10.9% of the variance in adequacy and 9.9% of the variance in predilection. Participants' age was inversely related to adequacy (? = -0.374) and predilection (? = -0.621). The combination of other variables related to adequacy brought the total variance explained to 14.7%, while the model for predilection explained a total of 13.7%. Results indicate an association between cardiorespiratory fitness and measures of physical activity adequacy and predilection. These findings suggest that ADULTS IN POSITIONS WHERE THEY WHISH TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOMENT OF CHILDREN'S PHYSICAL LITERACY should consider the physiological and psychological makeup of the child, and ways to enhance adequacy and predilection among children with limited cardiorespiratory fitness, in order to create the best possible environment for all children to participate in physical activity.Acknowledgments: RBC Learn to Play
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".