Predilection for physical activity and body mass index z-score can quickly identify children needing support for a physically active lifestyle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive physical literacy assessments can be time-consuming and require a gymnasium space and examiner training. This project sought to identify easy-to-administer tasks, suitable for all physical activity and healthcare settings, which could quickly screen a group of children to identify those most likely to benefit from an in-depth assessment or additional physical literacy support. The 40 potential screening tasks were compared with the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy among 226 children (57% female) aged 8 to 12 years. Absolute body mass index z-score above 0.67 or predilection for physical activity less than 31.5/36 points had the highest sensitivity (81% and 83%, respectively) and specificity (45% and 52%, respectively). Predilection less than 31.5 combined with absolute body mass index z-scores achieved 81% sensitivity and 64% sensitivity. When the selected tasks were repeated on a different sample of 71 children (50% female), results were similar with the combination of predilection and absolute body mass index achieving 92% sensitivity and 53% specificity. Predilection for physical activity, absolute body mass index z-score, and a combination of the two are quick and easy screening tasks suitable for all physical activity settings that can identify children likely to need additional support for a physically active lifestyle. Novelty: Physical literacy screening can be completed in recreation, education, allied health, coaching and healthcare settings. Predilection for physical activity and body mass index z-score quickly identify children needing physical literacy support.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".