An exploration of indigenous peoples’ perspectives of physical literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy is a key focus within physical education and sport policy and practice in Canada. Although physical literacy has been suggested to benefit the general population, the experiences of Indigenous peoples are noticeably absent in the physical literacy literature. To facilitate meaningful and inclusive sport policies and programmes in Canada, it is necessary to develop a physical literacy evidence-base that is grounded in the voices of Indigenous peoples. The purpose of this research was to explore Indigenous peoples’ perspectives of physical literacy. Two research questions were used to guide the research process: (a) how do Indigenous coaches, educators, and youth mentors understand physical literacy?, and (b) what is the role of Indigenous coaches, educators, and youth mentors in facilitating physical literacy among Indigenous youth? Eleven Indigenous educators, coaches, and youth mentors served as collaborators in this community-based participatory research. One-on-one and sharing circle interviews were used to generate data. Collaborators’ understandings of physical literacy, and their role in facilitating physical literacy among Indigenous youth, are represented by five themes: (a) wisdom sharing (b) being mindful in teachings, (c) youth-centered approaches, (d) culture and spirituality as part of being active for life, and (e) relational support. Findings from this research contributes to a more in-depth understanding of physical literacy in the research literature, and how the concept is understood in practice. Importantly, findings from this research highlight several suggestions for facilitating physical literacy among Indigenous youth that may support future physical education and sport initiatives that are inclusive of, and meaningful to, Indigenous youth.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".