Développer le goût de l’activité physique et l’enseignement de l’éducation physique à l’école secondaire : un rendez-vous manqué
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'education physique a l'ecole secondaire developpe-t-elle le gout de l'activite physique? Developper le gout de l'activite physique est le but vise par la tres grande majorite des educateurs physiques du secondaire; or les chiffres de pratique d'activite physique chez les Canadiens sont loin de demontrer qu'ils ont acquis un tel gout. L'article presente ici pose un regard critique sur l'enseignement de l'education physique a l'ecole secondaire et sa capacite de developper le gout de l’activite physique. On y presente une hypothese pour expliquer comment cet enseignement n'atteint pas son objectif fondamental de developper chez les adolescentes et chez les adolescents ce gout de l'activite physique. Does physical education in high school help students develop an interest in physical activity? Although this seems the main objective of most phys-ed teachers at the secondary level, Canadian statistics clearly indicate that Canadians have not yet developed a love of physical activity. This article critically examines how physical education is taught in high schools and offers a hypothesis as to why current teaching methods do not help teachers attain their stated objective, that is encouraging teenagers to develop a greater interest in physical activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".