Hypothèse de la variabilité de la pratique physique mise en perspective : recension des écrits et discussions méthodologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur les résultats de recherches traitant de l’hypothèse de la variabilité de la pratique physique. De plus, il décrit les principaux facteurs pouvant influencer l’apprentissage moteur et la performance motrice. Finalement, des stratégies d’organisation de la pratique physique sont proposées pour les enseignants d’éducation physique ainsi que pour les entraîneurs sportifs. Plus particulièrement, la pratique physique spécifique est suggérée quand il s’agit d’adultes, de garçons, d’experts, ainsi que de tâches simples et lentes de positionnement linéaire. En revanche, la pratique physique variable est recommandée quand il s’agit d’enfants, de novices, de filles, ainsi que de tâches balistiques rapides et complexes faisant appel à un processus de formation de schéma moteur.
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 | 0.110 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".