Pour analyser et comprendre l’intervention en éducation physique : pourquoi se contenter du regard du borgne?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir mis en contexte l’évolution du domaine de l’EP au cours des dernières années, les auteurs décrivent l’avènement relativement récent de la recherche qualitative et son utilisation dans la recherche sur l’enseignement en éducation physique (EP), un domaine traditionnellement marqué par l’épistémologie et les méthodes des sciences de la nature. Par la suite, s’appuyant sur la littérature de même que sur un exemple concret en recherche sur l’intervention éducative en EP, ils discutent des positions épistémologiques et méthodologiques en jeu dans la production et l’utilisation des résultats de la recherche et de quelques raisons pour ne pas se restreindre à une seule approche dans l’exploration scientifique de l’intervention éducative en ÉP.
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 | 0.066 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".