Symposium presentation #1: Movement for life! Promoting physical literacy in the early years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults need to understand the significance of physical literacy in the early years to assist young children in developing a love of being physically active (Newport, 2013). Activity patterns established between birth and 6 years of age are an indicator of levels of physical activity for the next five years (Jones et al., 2013). Taylor and colleagues (2009) suggested that activity levels in young children can start to decrease at age 3. As such, supporting young children to engage in physical activity in their early years is important. Caregivers during those early years, including early childhood educators, serve as role models and are the gatekeepers to providing physical literacy development. However, Whitehead (2010) and Clark (2014) argue that early childhood educators may not recognize the importance or give attention to movement skills in young children, as they tend to focus on language, numeracy, social, and emotional skills development. Thus, increasing early childhood educators' understanding and promotion of physical literacy is necessary to improve the opportunities to develop physical literacy in young children. This presentation will focus on the role that adult caregivers play in the development of early childhood physical literacy. Specifically, the collaborative considerations between the City of Winnipeg and University of Winnipeg researchers regarding this issue and the subsequent creation and implementation of an evidence based physical literacy education program for adult caregivers (highlighting early childhood educators) of infants, toddlers, and preschool children will be discussed.Acknowledgments: The City of Winnipeg Department of Community Development and Recreation Services
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.042 |
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".