Recent Graduates’ Perspectives on Undergraduate Kinesiology Programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Kinesiologists are a growing group of health professionals in Canada who can enter practice after completing undergraduate kinesiology programs. Unlike other health professional programs such as physiotherapy that have well-established curricula and extensive national accreditation standards, kinesiology programs vary considerably between institutions. The resultant disparities in kinesiology graduates’ entry-level skillsets, competencies, and confidence levels contribute to their uncertainty regarding their role in healthcare and the public’s underutilization of kinesiology services. Conclusions: As former kinesiology students, and as current kinesiologists and allied health professionals, we offer our perspective on how undergraduate kinesiology programs could change to respond to the needs of their graduates. Specifically, we suggest an increased emphasis on practical skill development, providing students with kinesiologist mentors and teaching staff, offering kinesiologist specific career planning, and creating explicit streams of specialization. We hope our perspectives based on our own lived experience will better prepare kinesiology students for careers as kinesiologists.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".