Adolescents' physical activity profiles and perspectives on physical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While physical education (PE) is as an avenue for students to be physically active and learn about health behaviours; PE enrolment is declining (Faulkner et al., 2004; Hobin et al., 2010). The current study used mixed methodology to examine adolescents’ health profiles and gain understanding of their perspectives of PE. The purpose of Part 1 was to identify relationships over a two year period between: PE Rating, physical activity (PA), and health variables, and to identify changes in PA/health variables. This was accomplished through analysis of adolescents (n=1,713-4,182) from two cycles of the NLSCY. Part 2 examined adolescents’ perspective of PE through four focus groups. Overall PE was preferred over other subjects by 78% of participants; and preferring PE over other subjects predicted higher frequencies of PA inside and outside of school, lower body mass index (BMI), and higher self-esteem. Over the two-year period NSBPA and Health Status declined, and BMI increased indicating a poorer health profile. While the focus groups presented a variety of themes including: impressions of PE, environment, gender differences, uniqueness, and students’ suggestions, the most influential factors of enrolment were course conflicts and teacher influence. In summary, PE Rating predicts activity levels and positive health variables despite a decline in health measures during adolescence. While students prefer PE over other subjects scheduling difficulties influence subsequent enrolments in high school. Continued efforts need to be made to increase PE enrolment and participation to ensure the health of young Canadians.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".