Tendències o direccions de l'esport contemporani en funció dels motius de la pràctica : un estudi empíric entre els estudiants de la Universitat d'Oviedo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les investigacions descriptives sobre els motius que porten els joves a practicar l’esport, desenvolupades majoritariament als Estats Units i a paisos anglofons, com ara Gran Bretanya, Australia i el Canada, han mostrat de forma consistent una estructura multifactorial. La majoria s’emmarquen dintre de la perspectiva cognitivosocial i es recolzen en el concepte de motivacio d’assoliment. A partir d’aquests resultats, el nostre objectiu ha estat analitzar l’estructura ‘motivacional’ subjacent, amb l’objecte de determinar les tendencies mes acusades de l’esport contemporani. Els joves sotmesos a enquesta, 2.689, son estudiants de la Universitat d’Oviedo (1.440 homes i 1.249 dones). Tots ells van respondre questionari dissenyat amb aquesta finalitat. Els resultats evidencien una doble estructura bipolar que sembla respondre a la ‘binaritzacio’ de dos criteris: competicio (C) i mestratge (M). La seva presencia o absencia origina un arbre dicotomic de quatre branques. Aquests quatre subgrups mostren, a mes a mes, unes peculiaritats derivades de les diferencies de genere, tipus d’activitat i intensitat de la motivacio vers l’esport. Finalment, es discuteixen els resultats i se n’extreuen algunes conclusions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".