MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Desenvolvendo um modelo de revisão rápida para graduação em Educação Física

2020· article· pt· W3048432838 on OpenAlexaff
Crisllayne Fátima De Souza, Verônica Volski Mattes, Michael Da Silva, Taniya S. Nagpal, Danilo Fernandes da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueCaderno de Educação Física e Esporte · 2020
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyContinuing educationPsychologyMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJETIVO: Elaborar um modelo de revisão rápida que pode ser útil para trabalhos de conclusão de curso (TCC) de Educação Física, e para a aproximação entre evidências científicas e prática profissional. MÉTODOS: São descritas as adaptações feitas para criar um método alternativo de condução de revisões rápidas para TCC’s de curso de graduação. RESULTADOS: Aluna e professor apresentaram os dados extraídos dos estudos, opinião inicial e síntese final da aluna e, finalmente, relato crítico de membros da banca e pesquisadora com experiência em tradução de conhecimento (Knowledge Translation, KT) sobre a estratégia desenvolvida froam incluídos. CONCLUSÃO: Espera-se que esse relato propicie discussão continuada sobre o processo de orientação de TCC’s na Educação Física, neste caso com ênfase em Atividade Física e Saúde e formas de se fazer a evidência científica se aproximar da prática, através de ações direcionadas aos futuros profissionais. ABSTRACT. Developing a rapid review model for undergraduate level in Physical Education. OBJECTIVE: To elaborate on a rapid review model that can be useful for undergraduate thesis projects (TCC) in Physical Education courses, and for approximate science and professional practice. METHODS: We described the adaptations performed in order to come up with an alternative method to develop rapid reviews in fourth year projects at the undergraduate level. RESULTS: A student and professor presented extracted data from the studies, the student provided initial opinion and final synthesis and, finally, critical appraisal of the committee and researcher with expertise in knowledge translation about the developed method were included. CONCLUSION: We expect that this report will promote discussion on the topic about the supervision of fourth year research projects in Physical Education, with emphasis on Physical Activity and Health and offers a way to bridge the gap between scientific evidence and practices through actions directed at to future professionals.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.019
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaderno de Educação Física e EsporteSame topicHealth Education and ValidationFrench-language works237,207