Exploring Knowledge of the Concept of Physical Literacy among Rehabilitation Professionals, Students and Coaches Practicing in a Pediatric Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 22% of Canadian children with physical disabilities meet the daily physical activity recommendations. Physical activity is attributed to physical literacy, a conceptualization of the domains required to be physically active throughout life. In Canada, pediatric rehabilitation professionals’ and coaches’ roles are essential for developing physical literacy. The aim of the study was to explore knowledge of physical literacy and strategies for developing physical literacy for children with physical disabilities among pediatric rehabilitation professionals, students, and coaches in Quebec. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pediatric rehabilitation professionals, students and coaches and thematically analyzed using NVivo. Twenty professionals and students reported having variable knowledge about physical literacy, but suggested that adaptation, play and interdisciplinarity were essential in the development of physical literacy for children with physical disabilities. Participants highlighted the need to redefine fundamental movement skills for children with physical disabilities. Despite perceiving varied knowledge of the physical literacy concept, pediatric rehabilitation professionals and coaches described essential domains to foster physical literacy in children with disabilities. Pediatric rehabilitation professionals and coaches play a vital role in fostering physical literacy. Therefore, it is essential to support the development of knowledge that may support professionals, such as through training programs and continuing education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".