Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on how learning outcomes of sports skills can be evaluated through field observation. The problem arises when the researcher noticed that the ability of physical education teachers in evaluating skills observation is low. There are some factors that influence this ability. The factors are: they cannot differ between cyclic and non-cyclic movement, they are not able to differentiate technical knowledge that is based on quantity or result, and they have less knowledge to apply evaluation through observation. The purpose of this article is to give solution and alternative to physical education teacher in order to conduct a measurement. There are three aspects involved in evaluating a movement. They are: observing, analyzing, and applying. Furthermore, there are three processes involved in learning psychomotor skills, namely, basic learning stage, concentration, and specialization. An individual’s ability to perform a movement task can be differentiated by age difference, purpose and motivation, movement experience, ability, coordination, and training frequency. This article focuses on the ability and coordination of the performer. Some special characteristics of movements such as movement structure, rhythm, connectivity, width, speed, and accuracy of movements will also be discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".