Effects of a Physical Literacy Breaks (PLBreaks) Program on Physical Literacy and Body Composition in Portuguese Schoolchildren: A Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Several studies have shown that active breaks have led to different improvements in their participants. However, no studies have assessed how they affect physical literacy (PL). (2) Aims: Therefore, this study will examine the effect of the PLBreaks programme on school children's PL and body composition. (3) Methods: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial will be conducted with assessments of PL (Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy Development) and body composition (height, bodyweight, fat mass and fat-free mass) before and after an active breaks programme. PLBreak programme will run for 3 months and will be carried out 3 days a week for 20 min each day. The PLBreaks programme will consist of two blocks of 10 min of different physical activities (PA). The first block will be focused on the acquisition of knowledge and healthy life habits that will contribute to the development of the domains of knowledge and understanding and daily activity. The second block will be focused on physical competence and motivation throughout games. (4) Conclusions: The present study will investigate the efficacy of PLBreaks in schoolchildren in improving their PL and body composition. If the efficacy of the program is demonstrated, including the programme in public education programmes can be possible. This could be a scientific breakthrough in terms of health-related PA improvement and adherence, as well as the prevention of diseases associated with inactivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".