MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Qualitative Inquiry of Females’ Experiences With a Novel High School Intramural Program

2023· article· en· W4323309814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ken R. Lodewyk, Stephanie Beni, James Foley, Tricia Zakaria, Denise Romy Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physical Educator · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationDisengagement theoryFocus groupIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedical educationPhysical educationPhysical activityQualitative researchPedagogyInterpersonal communicationMedicineGerontologyPhysical therapySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescent females’ disengagement from physical education, physical activity, and sport has been well documented. Participating in a quality intramural program could help to increase rates of adolescent females’ engagement in physical activity at school. This study was conducted with female students in four high schools in south-central Canada. A school-specific organizing committee consisting of an outside expert, teacher-lead, and several female student-facilitators designed and implemented a new optional intramural program rooted in best practices to 483 female students. Semistructured focus group interviews were held with 25 student-facilitators before and after the intramural intervention. There was a noticeable reduction in the females’ perceived barriers to being engaged in physical activity at school after the program intervention. Accommodating the intrapersonal, inter­personal, and environmental needs of adolescent females may help intramurals to counter the allure of more sedentary options at school.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physical EducatorSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207