MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1982575887 · doi:10.1080/19325037.2011.10599167

Health Education circa 2035—A Commentary

2011· article· en· W1982575887 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert J. McDermott

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Health Education · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueSchool Health and Nursing Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAllianceRecreationGeorge (robot)Quarter (Canadian coin)DanceMedia studiesHistorySociologyPsychologyVisual artsArt historyLawPolitical scienceArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Most of us are intrigued by the prospect of the future and at some point in our lives we all think about how interesting it would be if we could see into the future. In the 1960s, Rod Serling gave us the Twilight Zone, a show that from time-to-time revealed to us what life might be like in the future. In the 1960 movie, The Time Machine (not its forgettable 2002 remake) actor Rod Taylor, as H. George Wells, traveled far into the future to find that the world as he knew it largely had been destroyed and the human race that survived had divided into two hostile species. In 2010, I was asked to represent the American Association for Health (AAHE) at the 125th Annual Meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) in Indianapolis, when the Alliance's various constituents assembled to reflect on its 125 years, with a focus on its most recent quarter of a century. In some ways it was ironic that I was asked to be AAHE's soothsayer for that occasion. You see, a little more than 30 years ago, while in graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I purchased my own hand-held Texas Instruments Statistical Calculator and an office mate bought one of the first microcomputers, a Radio Shack device whose storage system was magnetic cassette tape. At that point I predicted that technology had advanced as far as I was likely to see in my lifetime. Therefore, if my insights are as good now as they were then, all of you might as well stop reading. On the 100th anniversary of AAHPERD in 1985, the late Peter Cortese, a renowned educator and President of AAHE, was asked to speculate about our future as I was asked to do. Cortese was concerned about the back to basics movement that started rising in 1980s education rubric and that developed into a dogma that eventually became iconic as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In the zeal to attain a targeted test score and achieve a sought after benchmark of school performance, the utility and simplicity of Cortese's worry of there being nothing more basic than health was lost on schools. Today, we are fighting for the return of formal physical education requirements amidst a much-publicized epidemic of childhood obesity and a generation of sedentary youth. Cortese warned us that it was penny-wise and pound-foolish to decrease funding for community programs. Today, Lastly, Cortese addressed himself to the evolution of the education profession itself. Voluntary certification of educators was to occur less than five years after he addressed the 1985 assembly. However, more than 20 years later, the certification scepter has not made much headway with employers and educators and still languishes somewhere low within the hierarchy of professionals. So, what will life be like in 2035, and what will its implications be for the way in which education is practiced? To say the least, that is a challenging question. In the late 1980s, as our education MPH program was evolving at the University of South Florida College of Public Health, some colleagues and I were asked to survey a random sample of the Who's Who in Health Education to gain insight about the preparation of educators in research and practice for the 1990s and beyond. What we received with perfect acuity was not insight about the future, but rather, profoundly detailed hindsight of the ideal preparation of the educator for the 1970s. The best education minds could not come to terms with change and uncertainty, and being out of their comfort zones. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,536
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,990

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,089
Tête enseignante GPT0,490
Écart entre enseignants0,400 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of Health EducationMême sujetSchool Health and Nursing EducationTravaux en français237 207