PHYSICAL LITERACY OF FEMALE RECREATIONAL GYMNASTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children, especially girls, do not demonstrate physical activity (PA) and physical literacy (PL) levels associated with sufficient health benefits. Gymnastics is thought to be a suitable field for reinforcing children’s PL and related elements, such as PA. This study aimed at assessing the PL level of female recreational gymnasts to detect areas of sufficient and insufficient development in their PL. For that, 101 8-12-year-old girls (Mage=10.1±1.4), who participated in recreational gymnastics programs for at least one year (Myears=3.7±2.0), were assessed by using the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL-2). Average scores (M±SD) for total PL and its related elements were calculated for all participants. Accordingly, each of them was classified into one out of the four CAPL-2’s interpretive categories, indicating whether she was at a non-recommended (“beginning”, “progressing”) or recommended level (“achieving”, excelling”). Regression analysis examined the association of total PL score with participants’ age and years of participation in gymnastics. Although the female gymnasts, similarly to same-age children worldwide, did not present adequate PL level, their fitness was sufficiently developed and they were excessively motivated/confident for PA. Adversely, other PL elements, i.e., their motor competence, PA knowledge, PA participation, were below the recommended levels, indicating deficiencies in their PL development. Age was associated with total PL (b=.440, p=.0001), whereas the years of gymnastics’ participation were not (b=.090, p=.325). Participation in recreational gymnastics is important for enhancing several PL elements of female gymnasts; however, for developing the entire range of PL elements, the implementation of multicomponent gymnastics programs must be prioritized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".