Internal social processes of discipline formation: The case of kinanthropometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1972, the term 'kinanthropometry', derived from the Greek words 'kinein' (to move), 'anthropos' (human) and 'metrein' (to measure), was launched in the international, Francophone journal Kinanthropologie by the Canadian William Ross and the Belgians, Marcel Hebbelinck, Bart Van Gheluwe and Marie-Louise Lemmens. The authors defined this neologism as 'the scientific discipline for the study of the size, shape, proportion, scope and composition of the human being and its gross motor functions'. Presenting a theoretical framework for the analysis of the internal social processes of discipline formation - derived from the social history-of-science tradition - this article critically examines whether kinanthropometry was indeed promoted and developed by its community members as a scientific discipline. Therefore, the focus will be on its conceptualisation and positioning within the field of kinanthropology/kinesiology and on its development by a scholarly association, i.e. the International Working Group on Kinanthropometry (IWGK). The strong emphasis of the kinanthropometry community on the standardisation of measurement techniques and its practical and professional application hampered its disciplinary development. Findings of this study could serve as a basis for future 'fundamental' investigations addressing questions of disciplinary development within the field(s) of physical education, kinesiology and sport science(s).
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it