The feasibility and impact of a painted designs intervention on school children’s physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interventions such as painted designs on school tarmacs may increase children’s physical activity during school hours. This mixed-methods study examined the influence of a painted designs (e.g., traditional games, random circles) intervention on the physical activity experiences of elementary school children. Systematic observations and accelerometer data were collected to evaluate the type and quantity of student physical activity. Interviews were used to explore teacher and student experiences. Observed physical activity was not significantly different between intervention and control schools (t(43) = 0.22, p = 0.83), and children at the intervention schools undertook less physical activity (steps, moderate, vigorous, and combined moderate-to-vigorous activity) as compared with the control school (t = 2.71–4.35, p < 0.05). Teachers and students commented that the painted designs were confusing but held potential for inclusiveness, physical activity, and learning. Additional resources and instruction may assist in better use of painted designs for physical activity and academic learning.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".