The Effectiveness of CBL Model to Improve Analytical Thinking Skills the Students of Sport Science
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
<p class="apa">Sport science undergraduate education, one of which purposes is to produce an analyst in sport. However, generally analytical thinking skills of sport science’s students is still relatively very low in the context of sport. This study aimed to describe the effectiveness of Physics Learning Model in Sport Context, Context Based Learning (CBL) model. The effectiveness of CBL model was described based on the data of increasing analytical thinking skills of sports science’s students. This research used experimental design of pre-test and post-test design with replication. The results showed that the CBL model was able to improve the analytical thinking skills of sport science’s students with N-gain of 0.78 in high category increase. Statistical paired t-tests also informed that the model can significantly improve analytical thinking skills of sport science’s students at the level of significance as much as α = 0.05. Based on the improvement of students’ analytical thinking skills, it can be concluded the CBL model was effective.</p>
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it