Teachers’ Perceptions of Physical literacy
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
Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore what current physical education specialists and generalists know and understand about physical literacy and how the concept is operationalised in physical education. Six teachers from an urban school district in Canada participated in semi‐structured interviews as part of a larger physical literacy intervention study. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Three themes were generated from the data: (a) ‘Never really used that word [physical literacy] before’, (b) ‘Well, we do have outcomes’ and (c) ‘What do you guys want to play’? Findings demonstrated that the majority of teachers in this study, regardless of being a specialist or generalist, exhibited limited understanding regarding the overall concept of physical literacy. This illuminates the need for all teachers to be better supported to understand and develop physical literacy through their physical education classes.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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