Formation à l’observation de futurs intervenants éducatifs en rugby : quelles conséquences pour leur conception du jeu?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article théorique s’inscrit dans le champ de l’analyse de l’activité humaine. Nous nous intéressons au développement d’étudiants en formation initiale en Sciences et techniques des activités physiques et sportives, spécialistes de rugby. Nous repérons les moments d’un processus de genèse instrumentale (Rabardel, 1995) d’étudiants qui utilisent un artefact matériel, sous la forme d’un logiciel informatique dédié à la description du jeu de rugby à 7. En mobilisant la démarche technologique, nous identifions au fil du module de formation des comportements révélateurs d’une appropriation du logiciel. La controverse entre les étudiants à propos de la qualification des phases de jeu, que l’utilisation de l’outil informatique provoque, contribue à développer autant la phase d’instrumentation (prise en main de l’outil) que la phase d’instrumentalisation (mise à leur main de l’instrument). Ce double processus amène les étudiants à alimenter initialement le registre de technicité de lecture du rugby, développant ainsi leur compétence à lire le jeu qui se déroule sous leurs yeux.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".