Are Weigh-ins Pedagogically Justified in Postsecondary Physical Education and Health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the pedagogical dilemma surrounding the use of anthropometric measurements in postsecondary Physical Education and Health (PEH) courses. On one hand, the rise in obesity, an indicator of chronic disease risk, justifies the teaching of these concepts. On the other hand, addressing the issue of weight may pose a risk to the mental health of some students. Three groups were compared: those who weighed themselves in class (36), those who did so at home (41), and those who chose not to weigh themselves (65). A content analysis was used to examine the reasons behind these choices, while a repeated-measures covariance analysis (ANCOVA) compared learning about body composition, taking into account the motivation to take care of one’s health. Students who chose to weigh themselves demonstrated a better understanding of body composition than those who refused. However, the latter expressed more negative reactions toward the weighing process. Therefore, offering students the choice to participate or not appears to be the most pedagogically appropriate 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".