Esporte universitário: percepção de atletas sobre os modelos brasileiro e canadense
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
Introdução: Introdução: O esporte universitário tem um papel muito importante no cenário esportivo mundial. No Canadá, o esporte universitário teve início há poucos anos e já vem colhendo frutos no esporte profissional. Embora, no Brasil, o modelo de esporte universitário apresente semelhanças, porém não tem exibido sucesso.Objetivo: Comparar a situação atual do esporte universitário no Brasil e no Canadá, por meio da percepção de jovens que tiveram a experiência de participar do esporte universitário em ambos os países.Métodos: Quatorze alunos que tiveram a oportunidade de vivenciar o esporte universitário em ambos os países (Brasil e Canadá). Foi elaborado um questionário estruturado, este aplicado duas vezes, sendo uma para cada país. As perguntas foram segmentadas nas dimensões: logística de treinamento, dimensões estruturais, dimensões de jogo, dimensões organizacionais e dimensões gerais. O índice de confiabilidade do instrumento foi verificado através do coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Foi utilizado o teste de Wilcoxon para verificar diferença estatística significativa entre os questionários.Resultados: As respostas dos alunos às assertivas que compuseram o questionário sobre o esporte universitário apresentam caráter mais negativo para o Brasil alcançando um total de escore de 30,93 contra 76,64 do Canadá. Neste último país, em todas as dimensões os escores exibidos foram superiores aos reportados pelos atletas em relação ao Brasil. A diferença em relação ao esporte universitário dos países foi estatisticamente significativa (p<0,05).Conclusão: Concluiu-se que as faculdades no Canadá apresentam um modelo de estrutura de esporte universitário mais favorável ao desenvolvimento do esporte de alto rendimento no país, possuindo departamento esportivo, voltado diretamente para os times universitários, área acadêmica e área esportiva trabalhando em conjunto. Tal estrutura falta no modelo brasileiro de esporte universitário representando obstáculo para o sucesso do esporte nacional.University Sports: Brazilian and Canadian Models under Athletes’ PerceptionIntroduction: University sports play a very important role on the world sports scene. In Canada, college sports started a few years ago and have been reaping fruit in professional sports. Although in Brazil, the university sports system has similarities, but it has not shown success.Objective: To compare the current situation of university sports in Brazil and Canada, through the perception of young people who had the experience of participating in university sports in both countries.Methods: Fourteen students who had the opportunity to experience university sports in both countries (Brazil and Canada). A structured questionnaire was built, applied twice, once for each country. The questions were segmented into the dimensions: training logistics, structural dimensions, game dimensions, organizational dimensions and overall dimensions. The reliability index of the instrument was verified using the Cronbach alpha coefficient. The Wilcoxon test was used to verify significant statistical difference between the questionnaires.Results: The mean age of the sample was 22.85 ± 2.63. The students' responses about university sports in the countries are more negative for Brazil, reaching a total score of 30.93 against 76.64 in Canada. Where the affirmations of the questionnaires represented positive aspects, in all dimensions the score reached in the questionnaires related to Canada was higher than the questionnaire related to Brazil. The difference in relation to the university sports of the countries was significant.Conclusion: It is concluded that colleges in Canada have a sports department geared directly to university teams, an academic area and the sports field working together. This structure is lacking in university sports in Brazil for its success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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