Global Insights and Key Trends in Physical Literacy Research: A Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review from 2007 to 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Extensive research has been carried out on physical literacy (PL) over the past decades. Nonetheless, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis of relevant publications has been performed. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric review of studies on PL to track research trends and highlight current research hotspots. Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database was selected to retrieve publications from inception to 2024 on PL. Articles and reviews written in English with PL as the main topic were included. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to perform analysis and visualization of scientific productivity and emerging trends. Results: A total of 710 publications were retrieved. Canada dominated this field with the most publications (188). The institution and author with the largest number of articles were The Chinese University of Hong Kong (46 publications) and Cairney John (35 publications), respectively. BMC Public Health was the most influential journal with 41 articles and 1214 citations. Publications were primarily distributed across journals in sports science, education, public health, and other allied disciplines. Five topics were identified by reference co-citation analysis and keyword analysis: the definition of PL, PL in education, the association of PL, the intervention of PL, and the measurement and assessment of PL. The measurement, assessment and intervention of PL may become the frontiers. Conclusion: PL research has witnessed growing scholarly interest over the past 18 years. The concept of PL lacks consensus, and the necessity of establishing a unified conceptualization remains contentious. Most existing PL measurement tools lack comprehensiveness in capturing conceptual components, highlighting the need for established instruments aligned with its theoretical foundations. PL interventions vary in design and effectiveness, making it essential to identify effective strategies. Furthermore, multidisciplinary collaboration is imperative. This study could offer strategic guidance for identifying potential collaborators and prioritizing research priorities.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.169 | 0.197 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".