La rationalisation de l’éducation physique en France,1950-1966 : la pédagogie du « rendement et du contrôle »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the post-war period (1950-1966), physical education in France went through a strong movement of methodological rationalization. Driven by a search for social acceptance and a desire to be recognized as a fundamental school subject, physical education sought to produce a form of efficiency combined with a procedure for the control of learning. The goal was to measure the effects of teaching, that is, the “progress” made. Yet during this period evaluation tools were neither effective nor unified or generalized. The innovative process begins with an estimation of the physical capacities of the pupils so as to define comparable level groups. Childcentredness becomes the most efficient method. Gradually, the tools allowing us to estimate this level become more impressive; the development of the classification table of Jean Letessier can be seen as the height of this innovation. This new methodology presents important theoretical and practical modes of rationality. However, controlling “progress” will turn out to be challenging. Clearly, the school conditions of teaching make it difficult to prove that the pupils have really progressed in their physical education classes. Many tensions remain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".