ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL LITERACY OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN: BASIC APPROACHES AND TOOLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of literacy has changed at different stages of society. With the increase of cultural demands of society, nowadays, this concept is polymorphic, complex in structure, and dynamic in terms of development, given the constant refinements that consider today's challenges and demands. The study aimed to analyze the approaches and tools/techniques developed on their basis, which allow us to assess school-age children's physical literacy holistically. Well-known tools for assessing the physical literacy of schoolchildren were considered and analyzed: PHE Canada – Passport for Life, PLAY (Canadian Sport for Life – Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth Tools), 60 Min Kids Club Fundamental Movement Skills Assessment Tool, Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL). It was shown that the Passport for Life involves assessing the literacy of children of both primary and secondary school age in four components – active participation, life skills, physical fitness, and motor skills. The tool PLAY involves assessing motor skills, level of knowledge and skills, physical competence, and confidence of the respondent; during pedagogical testing, it is recommended to use the following exercises: running, jumping, throwing the ball, exercises with the ball, walking on the line. The possibilities of the tool in taking into account the age, level of physical fitness, and state of health of the participant were shown. The structure and modifications of the CAPL methodology, the possibilities of the tool for obtaining a comprehensive assessment of physical literacy, and separate data characterizing the level of physical fitness, motor behavior, behavioral aspects of motor activity, psychosocial and cognitive factors were considered. It was established that each of these tools was designed for school-age people, taking into account the level of physical activity or physical fitness of the child and the level of knowledge and behavior in different environments. Such a comprehensive assessment of the level of physical literacy provides an understanding of the factors that hinder or increase physical activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".