Development of a Global Physical Literacy (GloPL) Action Framework: Study protocol for a consensus process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The holistic concept of physical literacy (PL) has gained growing attention in recent research, policy, and practice. Many important policy documents of the physical activity and educational fields (e.g., Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030 by the World Health Organization, UNESCO's Quality Physical Education guidelines for policymakers) have specified PL. However, a clear framework for action is needed, as most initiatives across the world are fragmented, lack a prospective orientation, can benefit from conceptual clarification, and are not linked to effective translation into practice. Therefore, we aim to consensually develop a Global Physical Literacy (GloPL) Action Framework to define goals and principles (asking what is needed) as well as actions and ways (asking how these can be achieved) to move PL forward. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We apply a three-stage group Delphi technique involving three representation groups: (a) geographical representatives to achieve global coverage of perspectives; (b) representatives of special thematic interest reflecting prominent gaps of current PL activities; and (c) representatives of societies from the broad field of physical activity and health to facilitate dissemination. The process will begin with an individual pre-Delphi exercise, in which experts generate initial ideas for the framework, followed by a four-eye document analysis to derive themes for the discussion. Subsequently, the experts will meet face-to-face in three online rounds to discuss and prioritize the themes. Interspersed formal voting with pre-defined agreement thresholds (via descriptive statistics) will inform the inclusion of themes within the final framework. CONCLUSIONS: A global consensus on goals, principles, actions, and ways for the development of PL has the potential to provide a largely accepted roadmap for future activities in research, policy, and practice. The co-production approach will help disseminate the GloPL Action Framework and benefit work in relevant application fields of physical activity and health worldwide.
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 | 0.259 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.020 |
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".