Teaching Practice between Ostension and Proximity: The Case of a Seasoned Physical Education Teacher in Clinical Didactics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims, within a clinical didactics framework, to identify the crucial role of “proxemics” (Hall, 1966, 1973), as a major driver of the non-verbal interaction within the teaching-learning process in Physical Education (PE) and the relationship that it maintains with ostension. We proceeded with a double analysis (quantitative and qualitative) case study of a Physical Education teacher’s in situ practice in order to identify this singularity (Terrisse, 2000). Results show a significant dependence between the use of didactic distance types (Forest, 2006) and ostension types (Salin, 2002) utilized in his teaching practice. As a result, we noticed that “distance” is intimately related to different types of ostension and has a major role, as an implicit form of interaction, in the regulation and the management of didactic situations. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.2.6
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".