MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interactive Flow in Exercise Pedagogy

2006· article· en· W1986231760 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Lloyd, Stephen J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueQuest · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhenomenology (philosophy)ConsciousnessGestureClosenessReciprocity (cultural anthropology)EmotiveFlow (mathematics)Social psychologyPedagogyMathematics educationCognitive psychologyEpistemologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A phenomenology of the bodily experience of interactive flow adds to Csikszentmihalyi's flow theory. Whereas Csikszentmihalyi attended to teachers' and students' experiences of flow separately, this inquiry explores flow through three water-inspired layers of physical interaction between fitness professionals and their clients. Teaching fitness is likened to the emotive experience of surfing the ocean peaks, swimming in the shallows, and diving deep beneath the surface. As a producer of high, immersed, and deep flow, this teaching moves actively from an elevated stage of one-sided instruction to motions of deep, other-directed absorption. Learning to teach in this flow-producing way is portrayed through first-person accounts of the intensification of closeness, connection, reciprocity, and mutuality between fitness professionals and their clients. This study, with its reference to the postures, positions, gestures, and expressions of fitness instruction, indicates a kinaesthetic register of flow consciousness that serves as a guide to effective exercise pedagogy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuestSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207