MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365444212 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284373

Development and evaluation of the IPLAY program: A protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility study targeting newcomer youth

2023· article· en· W4365444212 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew Kwan, Sujane Kandasamy, Jeffrey D. Graham, Jennifer Konopaki, Denver M. Y. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImmigrationRefugeeConstruct (python library)Protocol (science)MultimethodologyProgram Design LanguageProgram evaluationLiteracyPsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicinePedagogyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical Literacy (PL) is a synthesis construct that ties together movement competencies with affective, motivational, and knowledge-based elements. It is considered foundational to the development of physical activity-related outcomes. Many diverse organizations and programs have embraced the concept and are implementing programs targeting each of those core elements. However, research has lagged behind its interest and adoption. Among the more prominent gaps is the design and evaluation of programs that aim to increase PL within special populations such as new immigrants or refugee youth. METHODS: The Immigrant-focused Physical Literacy for Youth (IPLAY) program is a co-developed evidence-informed 8-week PL program designed for new immigrant and refugee youths who have recently settled in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. This study aims to use a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach to collect, analyse, and interpret quantitative and qualitative data in the evaluation and iteration of the IPLAY program. DISCUSSION: PL programs can be used as a tool to build confidence and physical competencies among newcomer youth. Furthermore, academic-community collaborations in the design and delivery of PL programs can help improve the access and interest for PL programs among newcomer youth. These partnerships are critical and timely considering the recent and upcoming waves of immigration to "arrival cities" across Canada.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.014

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreProtocol

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207