A major review of stakeholder perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there may be some broad agreement about the purposes of primary physical education, there is dramatic variance in how these purposes are prioritised and enacted. Primary physical education consequently focusses on multiple, often competing, priorities. To gain a better understanding of this issue we review how different stakeholders view the purposes of primary physical education. We analysed 95 qualitative studies published between 2000 and 2017 that focussed on the views of different stakeholders. Across all stakeholders, the main purposes of primary physical education were identified as being physically active and learning physical, social, and emotional skills. Teachers and pupils were the most represented stakeholders, while the limited representation of school principals and policy makers was noted. The review indicates a need to examine the perspectives of those underrepresented stakeholders, serving as an entry point for bridge-building to shape the future direction of primary physical education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it