Physical Activity Counseling in Kinesiology Curricula: What is Offered in Ontario?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity counseling (PAC) is a viable approach for individualizing behavior change yet it is unclear if training opportunities in this area constitute a portion of the curriculum offered to university students by kinesiology departments. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the availability of courses in PAC within the curricular offered by kinesiology departments at the post-secondary level. Methods: Data were extracted from the 2018-2019 undergraduate calendars published by kinesiology departments from universities in Ontario, Canada. Results: Seventeen of the 22 universities (77.3%) reported a department of kinesiology (or equivalent). Every kinesiology department offered courses in human biomechanics and human psychomotor learning or neuroscience. Less than half (n = 7; 41.2%) of these kinesiology departments offered PAC courses. Conclusions: Overall, this study makes it apparent that university students completing a kinesiology degree may have limited access to formal training opportunities devoted exclusively to PAC in comparison to other knowledge domains (e.g., human biomechanics). Based on these results, it seems reasonable to contend that kinesiology programs may warrant reconfiguring to meet the occupational demands of exercise professionals who use PAC to combat physical inactivity.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".