MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W263202596 · doi:10.4324/9780203881897

Young People's Voices in Physical Education and Youth Sport

2010· book· en· W263202596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical educationYouth sportsPsychologySociologyGender studiesPedagogyAthletesPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Revisioning Young People's Voices in Physical Education and Sport Part 1: Exploring Voice in Different Settings 1. Students' Evolving Meanings and Experiences with Physical Activity and Sport 2. The Body, Physical Activity and Inequity: Learning to Listen with Girls through Action 3. Students' Curricular Values and Experiences Part 2: Multiple Identities Of Adolescent Populations 4. Finding Their Voice: Disaffected Youth Insights on Sport/Physical Activity Interventions 5. Using Ethnography to Explore The Experiences Of A Student With Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Physical Education 6. Hypermasculinity in Schools: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 7. Looking Back, Looking Sideways: Adult Perspectives about Student Experiences of Queerness in Canadian Physical Education Part 3: Theoretical Frames and Methodological Approaches 8. Push Play Every Day: New Zealand Children's Constructions of Health and Physical Activity 9. Carving A New Order of Experience With Young People in Physical Education: Participatory Action Research as a Pedagogy of Possibility 10. Got The Picture? Exploring Student Sport Experiences Using Photography as Voice Epilogue Hearing, Listening and Acting

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.403 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations124
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207