A cross-sectional study of Canadian children's valuation of literacies across social contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Children, on average, do not engage in sufficient physical activity to reap the physical, mental, and social health benefits. Understanding the value that children place on movement across social contexts, and the relative ranking of this valuation, may help us to understand and intervene on activity levels. Method This exploratory study examined the valuation of reading/writing, math, and movement across three social contexts (school, home, with friends) among children 6–13 years of age (N = 7,845; 51.3% male). Subjective task values across contexts were assessed with the valuing literacies subscale of the PLAYself. One-way Kruskal-Wallis ANOVAs were performed to test for differences between contexts and between literacies, respectively. Results Sex differences and age-related variation were explored. Valuations of reading/writing (d = 1.16) and math (d = 1.33) decreased across context (school > family > friend), while the valuation of movement was relatively stable (d = 0.26). Valuations differed substantially with friends (p < 0.001, d = 1.03). Sex dependent effect sizes were minimal (d = 0.05–0.11). Conclusions Movement is highly valued by children across social contexts; thus, programming across contexts should be prioritized to align with their valuation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".