Uso de la petanca en las programaciones de Educación Física y como actividad extraescolar en los Centros de Primaria (Use of petanque in the Physical Education curriculum and as an extracurricular activity in Primary Schools)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pesar de las posibilidades de adaptación (material, terreno, jugadores, etc) y de poder practicarla en casi cualquier contexto, la petanca es el «gran desconocido» dentro de los deportes escolares. Su asociación a la tercera edad unido al desconocimiento de las posibilidades, ventajas y beneficios que nos proporciona su práctica, son los principales factores por los que suponemos no se practica a nivel escolar. Según diversos estudios el uso de la petanca a nivel escolar es insignificante por no decir prácticamente inexistente. A pesar de la interesante aplicación educativa a nivel escolar y la gran versatilidad de sus componentes: terreno, material y reglamento. Se presenta para concluir una propuesta de secuenciación de contenidos según la L.O.E. que justificaría el empleo de la petanca en el contexto escolar.Abstract: Despite the possibilities of adaptation (equipment, playing field, players, etc.) and its capacity of being played in almost any context, the game petanque is surprisingly absent in school sporting activities. Its association with the elderly, in addition to the fact that little is known about the possibilities, advantages and benefits of practicing this sport, are probably the main reasons why it is not practiced in school settings. According to diverse studies, the use of petanque in school settings is insignificant and perhaps almost inexistent, despite its potentially interesting educational application in schools and the great versatility of its ingredients: the playing field, equipment and rules. In conclusion, we would like to present a proposal of sequenced content based on the L.O.E. that would justify the employment of petanque in school environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".