MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407343999 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1535729

Effects of a 7-week active breaks intervention program on physical literacy and body mass index

2025· article· en· W4407343999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Javier Urbano-Mairena, Laura Muñoz Bermejo, Jorge Carlos‐Vivas, Raquel Pastor-Cisneros, José Adrián Montenegro-Espinosa, María Mendoza-Muñoz

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsPsychologyLiteracyIntervention (counseling)Body mass indexPhysical activityPopulationDevelopmental psychologyHealth literacyGerontologyPhysical therapyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Physical literacy (PL) emerges as a highly effective resource for creating lasting physical activity habits at a time when physical inactivity has become one of the main risk factors in our population. Thus, active breaks (AB) could be an ideal option for increasing physical activity time in schoolchildren. Methods A cross-sectional quasi-experimental study was conducted, involving 89 participants aged 8-12 years from Extremadura. The Canadian assessment of physical literacy (CAPL-2) was administered to assess the participants' physical literacy level. The BMI was also measured. Results Higher scores were obtained in all domains and subdomains of the CAPL in the experimental group. Significant differences were found both in total physical literacy score (p < 0.001) and in all domains and subdomains, except for the subdomains self-reported question, intrinsic motivation and knowledge and understanding domain (p = 0.344). Conclusion The results of the study support the positive effects of an AB program of PL and its domains. The development of active break programs could help to increase the PL level of schoolchildren.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207