ความฉลาดรทางกายดานสมรรถนะทางกายในนกเรยนประถมศกษาตอนปลาย ทมนำหนกปกตและนำหนกเกนหรออวน : การศกษาเบองตน
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to study and compare physical literacy in physical competence among upper elementary school students with normal weight and those who are overweight or obesity.MethodsThe volunteer sample with purposive sampling consisted of 36 upper elementary school students aged 10–12 years. The participants were divided into two groups of 18 students each. The criteria for participant selection were based on the Z-score for weight-for-height according to Thai growth reference charts for children aged 6–19 years (Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, 2020). Students with normal weight had a Z-score greater than -1.5 SD to ≤ +2 SD. Students classified as overweight or obese had a Z-score greater than +2 SD according to the criteria set by Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health (2020). The data collection tools included tests and evaluations of physical literacy in physical competence, which consisted of aerobic fitness measured using the 20-meter PACER test from Fitnessgram. musculoskeletal endurance assessed through core strength using the plank assessment of torso strength and motor performance measured using the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment; CAMSA. The data were analyzed using the Independent Sample t-test, with statistical significance at level of 0.05.ResultsThe findings revealed that students with normal weight demonstrated significantly better aerobic fitness, muscular endurance, and overall physical literacy related to physical competence compared to their overweight or obese peers (p<0.05). However, no significant differences were found in motor performance between the two groups.ConclusionOverall physical competence in physical literacy in students with normal weight is better than those with overweight or obesity. Therefore, physical competence should be further promoted and developed through regular training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".