MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402778596 · doi:10.1002/curj.300

Understanding the social and emotional domains of physical literacy in post‐secondary education: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4402778596 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Curriculum Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracySocial emotional learningPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While a variety of definitions persist, a common definition of physical literacy is that it encompasses the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities over the lifespan. While this perspective to physical literacy is broad, a great deal of curricular outcomes still focus on the physical competence, knowledge and understanding aspects of the framework leaving a gap in the holistic nature of the construct. This scoping review explores the construct of physical literacy within post‐secondary education, focusing on how social and emotional dimensions are integrated in teaching, delivery and assessment. This scoping review followed PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Five online databases were used to identify papers published that used physical literacy in combination with post‐secondary as the educational setting with a focus on curriculum. The findings underscore a substantial gap in the literature. It was identified that the physical aspects of physical literacy were predominant with limited attention to the social and emotional domains. The gap implies that the comprehensive construct of physical literacy, which encompasses non‐physical facets, is often omitted in post‐secondary curricula. The review highlights an unexplored opportunity for post‐secondary institutions to intentionally construct more comprehensive physical literacy programmes. By incorporating social and emotional dimensions into these programmes, students gain a more holistic understanding of physical literacy. Subsequent research can delve into effective integration strategies and the potential benefits of such an approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.343 · 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