Understanding the Physical Literacy Journey: A Qualitative Bioecological Investigation of Children’s Perceptions and Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume La litteratie physique est au cœur du discours actuel sur l’activite physique des enfants, mais plusieurs questions dans ce domaine demeurent sans reponses. Le but de notre recherche etait de developper des connaissances sur le parcours d’enfants dans le developpement de leur litteratie physique dans une perspective bioecologique. Trois garcons physiquement actifs, âges de 10 et 11 ans ont realise une entrevue semi structuree qui avait pour but de les amener a parler de leur parcours dans ce domaine de la litteratie physique. Notre analyse a revele que leur parcours etait ancre dans une pratique d’activite physique, frequente, a long terme et variee. La motivation des participants, leur confiance, leurs habiletes physiques, les interactions continues avec leurs pairs, les membres de la famille, l’ecole et les milieux de sport organise ont contribue a ce type de pratique d’activite physique. Les chercheurs dans le domaine de l’activite physique chez les enfants pourraient incorporer cette perspective bioecologique sur le developpement humain pour approfondir leur etude de variables qui influencent ce parcours d’enfants en litteratie physique. Mots-cles : modele bioecologique; litteratie physique; parcours
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".