KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING DOMAIN OF PHYSICAL LITERACY OF PRIMARY SCHOOLCHILDREN IN RELATION TO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy (PL) comprises several different aspects – physical competency, motivation, self-confidence, knowledge, understanding, daily behaviour in choosing physically active and healthy lifestyle. Learning to move may be even considered as the main literacy that we as humans truly need to acquire (Ydo, 2021). The aim of this cross-sectional pilot study was to evaluate the physical literacy domain of knowledge and understanding of primary school children, and compare it in respect of their own and their parents’ physical activity. In total, 103 dyads of 3rd-4th grade students and their parents (or legal guardians) took part in an online survey which consisted of two parts: (1) chidren had to fill in the questionnaire of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (in loose translation to Lithuanian); (2) parents, in addition to demographic data, provided answers regarding their own and their child’s physical activity. For this purpose, the Netherlands physical activity questionnaire (NPAQ) was used. The knowledge and understanding of the majority of children were of achieving and excelling level. Girls had greater results in PL than boys. The more physically active, the greater PL in knowledge and understanding. Boys, but not girls, who are attending sports after school had higher level of PL than their physically passive counterparts. Children, whose parents exercise regularly more often had higher score in PL than those who do it rarely, although children of the latter had lower score in PL than those whose parents do not excersise regurlarly. Keywords: physical literacy, physical activity, physical education, primary education, knowledge and understanding
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it