MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100850715

A comparative evaluation of Canadian physical activity play-based programs for children with different abilities and its transferability to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2019· dissertation· en· W3100850715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shuaa Mutawally

Bibliographic record

VenueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransferabilityKingdomPsychologyGeographyComputer scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with different abilities have been shown to have limited participation in play and physical activities, thereby placing them at higher risk for developmental health problems. Previous research has suggested that participation in play and physical activity program may benefit these children, the outcome of such programs potentially impacting their physical, social, and cognitive well-being. Given these links, it is important to understand how these play-based programs work and which of their specific features are responsible for positive outcomes. A comparative case study was applied to conduct the three phases of this inquiry: (1) the completion of comparative case studies of three similar play-based programs in Canada; (2) the identification and selection of useful and applicable patterns and features across all three playbased programs; and (3) the adaption and customization of a Canadian framework of play-based programs into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s culture and context. To complete the first two phases, interview data and unobtrusive data were collected from 40 Canadian program team members. The data were deductively and inductively analyzed via thematic analysis. The data were analyzed deductively and inductively via thematic analysis. The results included an indepth picture of three examples of Canadian play-based programs and their evidence-based successful factors. Important themes included: (a) the quality of the program (adequate program theory, implementation, material delivery, team, and facilities), (b) meeting needs, and (c) lessons learned from experts and practitioners. The third phase was completed by engaging 61 Saudi intended users in an open-ended questionnaire and SWOT analysis with the aim of increasing the likelihood of successful implementation. The result included a customized KSA play-based program based on the Canadian framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University)Same topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207