Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through methods of literature review, experts interview, logical induction, system analysis, etc., the problems existing in our current football activities on campus are studied, mainly include: lack of material guarantee, the low quality and serious shortage of coaches, prominent contradiction between learning and training, further scale enlargement needed. Further, on this basis countermeasures to promote the football activities on campus are mainly discussed, include: perfect guarantee mechanisms, strengthen supervision, improve evaluation scientificity, reform the school system of internal management, improve the quality of physical education teachers, and increase fund input. This study is to provide a theoretical reference for the football activities on campus in primary and secondary schools in our country and to promote the further development of football activities on campus. Key words: Football on campus; Problems; Countermeasures Resume: En consultant des documentations, faisant des interviews d'experts, et utilisant des methodes comme la logique inductive et l'analyse systematique, cet artcile etudie les problemes du football dans les ecoles chinoises : le manque de securite materielle, le faible niveau et une grave penurie d'entraineurs, la contradiction evidente entre l'apprentissage et la formation et une echelle restreinte reste a elargir. Sur cette base, il fait des recherches sur les activites menees pour promouvoir le football dans les ecoles : l’amelioration du mecanisme de protection, le renforcement de la surveillance, l’affinement des criteres de l'evaluation, la reforme de systeme de gestion interne, l’amelioration de la qualite des professeurs d'education physique et l'augmentation des capitaux d'investissement etc, afin de donner une reference aux ecoles primaires et secondaires qui veulent introduire le football dans leur programme scolaire et de promouvoir le developpement du football dans le campus. Mots cles: Football dans le campus; Problemes; Contre-mesures
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".