Tendencias o Direcciones del Deporte Contemporáneo en Función de los Motivos de Práctica. Un Estudio Empírico entre los Estudiantes de la Universidad de Oviedo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las investigaciones descriptivas sobre los motivos que llevan a los jovenes a practicar deporte, desarrolladas mayoritariamente en los Estados Unidos y en paises anglofonos como el Reino Unido, Australia y Canada, han mostrado de forma consistente una estructura multifactorial. La mayoria se enmarcan dentro de la perspectiva cognitivo-social y se apoyan en el concepto de motivacion de logro. A partir de estos resultado, nuestro objetivo ha sido analizar la estructura motivacional subyacente, al objeto de determinar las tendencias mas acusadas del deporte contemporaneo. Los jovenes 2.689 encuestados son estudiantes de la Universidad de Oviedo (1.440 hombres y 1.249 mujeres). Todos ellos respondieron cuestionario disenado a tal efecto. Los resultados evidencian una doble estructura bipolar que parece responder a la binarizacion de dos criterios: competicion (C) y maestria (M). Su presencia o ausencia origina un arbol dicotomico de cuatro ramas. Estos cuatro subgrupos muestran, ademas, unas peculiaridades derivadas de las diferencias de genero, tipo de actividad e intensidad de la motivacion hacia el deporte. Finalmente se discuten los resultados y se extraen algunas conclusiones.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".