MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406119180 · doi:10.1123/kr.2024-0032

Physical Activity and the Development of Executive Function in Healthy Children: A Bioecological Perspective

2025· article· en· W4406119180 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Schaerz

Bibliographic record

VenueKinesiology Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsLethbridge CollegeUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExecutive functionsDevelopmental psychologyPhysical activitySocioeconomic statusPerspective (graphical)Psychological interventionCognitionSituatedEarly childhoodFunction (biology)Physical educationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurosciencePedagogyEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive function comprises cognitive skills essential for activities like planning, emotion regulation, and problem solving. Neurological changes in the prefrontal cortex, linked to executive function, are associated with regular physical activity. This review explores the role of physical activity as a developmental process, situated within a complex and ever-evolving bioecological system. Meta-analytic evidence shows that physical activity involving complex motor skills, performed at moderate to vigorous intensity consistently and over extended periods, is most beneficial. The quality and quantity of physical activity conducive to executive function development are influenced by the developing child’s physical literacy, gender, parents, peers, schools, competitive sport involvement, socioeconomics, physical environments, and time. This review advocates for promoting childhood physical activity, supporting quality physical education in schools, and overcoming socioeconomic barriers. Future research should focus on real-world physical activity settings, longitudinal studies, and the optimal progression of physical activity interventions.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKinesiology ReviewSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207