MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Watch Britain”: Movement Education, Transnational Exchanges, and the Contested Terrain of Physical Education in Mid-Twentieth-Century Canada

2017· article· en· W2763795515 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Vertinsky, Bieke Gils

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport History · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Education Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical educationMovement (music)Psychological interventionGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogyMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The notion that exercise is medicine dominated Canadian physical education in its nineteenth-century inception and continued to circulate through fitness discourses despite the introduction of movement education in the mid-twentieth century, which offered more progressive methods of child-centered teaching. Canada’s approach to physical education in the postwar decades was affected by important transatlantic influences, not only in matters of national fitness but through numbers of émigrée female physical educators from Britain who played a significant role in the transfer and exchange of professional practices. Arriving in British Columbia—the end of the railway line—in the late 1950s and ’60s, these women promoted movement education and gained considerable traction in schools and colleges. Ultimately, however, an increasingly gendered discourse pitted the female-centered tradition of child-centered movement education against a growing appetite for competitive sport-skill-based forms of physical education and biopedagogical interventions supported by an evidence-based medicine approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport HistorySame topicHistorical Education Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207