Kelayakan pengukuran aspek pengetahuan pada instrumen physical literacy untuk siswa usia 8-12 tahun
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
Pengukuran physical literacy idealnya dilakukan pada ranah motivasi, kepercayaan diri, kompetensi fisik, pengetahuan dan pemahaman. Tingkat physical literacy dapat diprediksi dengan mengukur tingkat pengetahuan seseorang mengenai physical literacy menggunakan Physical Literacy Knowledge Questionnaire (PLKQ) yang berhasil dikembangkan oleh Longmuir et al. (2018). PLKQ terbukti memenuhi syarat instrumen di negara Canada untuk anak usia 8-12 tahun. Tujuan artikel ini adalah menguji kelayakan PLKQ ditinjau dari validitas dan reliabilitas untuk mengukur physical literacy anak usia 8-12 di Indonesia. Protokol descriptive study diterapkan dengan memanfaatkan survei terhadap 110 anak usia 8-12 tahun yang dipilih menggunakan accidental sampling . Analisis data menggunakan statistik deskriptif. Validitas dianalisis memanfaatkan product-moment pearson sedangkan reliabilitas menggunakan split-half . Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa PLKQ dinyatakan layak ditinjau dari vaiditas (r= 0,338-0,680) dan reliabilitas (r= 0,613). Tingkat pengetahuan physical literacy anak masuk dalam kategori kurang (m= 25,93, SD= 6,722). Sehingga PLKQ dapat menjadi alternatif pilihan untuk mengukur pengetahuan physical literacy di Indonesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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