Physical Education Teachers’ Embracement of Alternative Environment Activities
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
Background and Purpose : Despite widespread evidence suggesting the numerous benefits from being active in outdoor environments, children in many Western nations have recently been spending less time outdoors. This cross-sectional exploratory study provides a descriptive examination of physical education teachers’ embracement of alternative environment activities (AEAs) in physical education programs. Method : Data were collected from 225 current physical education teachers in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada, through an online survey. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, Levene’s tests, and independent t tests. Results : Significant differences were found in relation to teachers’ experiences, or lack thereof, with professional development in relation to the extent to which teachers embraced AEAs. Furthermore, cost was discovered to be the greatest perceived barrier to teaching AEAs. Discussion and Conclusions : This study reveals an established need for teachers’ professional development in teaching AEAs and for discovering ways to decrease cost barriers for teaching AEAs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it