Development of ELIP to Assess Physical Literacy for Emerging Adults: A Methodological and Epistemological Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Following increased interest in physical literacy (PL), development of appropriate tools for assessment has become an important next step for its operationalization. To forward the development of such tools, the objective of this study was to build the foundations of the Évaluation de la Littératie Physique (ELIP), designed to help reduce existing tensions in approaches to PL assessment that may be resulting in a low uptake into applied settings. Methods: We followed two steps: (1) the development of the first version of ELIP by deploying a Delphi method (n = 30); and (2) the modification of items through cognitive interviews with emerging adults (n = 32). Results: The expert consensus highlighted four dimensions of PL to be assessed—physical; affective; cognitive; and social—with new perspectives, including a preference for broad motor tests over fitness. Conclusion: Results offer new insights into the assessment of emerging adults’ PL, but ELIP still requires further work concerning validity, reliability, and sensitivity.
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 | 0.184 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".