Debate of Ideas and Understanding With Regard to Tactical Learning in Team Sports
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
Purpose : The researchers discuss the debate of ideas (DoI) and student understanding conducted on questioning and student answers or discussions in game-based approaches and on DoI as used in the tactical-decision learning model. Literature Review : Literature regarding types of questions and expected student answers and questioning for learning in game-based approaches is reviewed. In addition, a brief overview of the context in which DoI was originally developed is presented. Findings and Discussion : Studies that used DoI are discussed with regard to the management of game play and observation, DoI content and the dynamics of student discussions, and impact on game play statistics and on students’ tactical knowledge. Challenges for teachers and students are discussed, as a student-centered approach encourages changes in traditional teacher and student roles. Finally, the importance of understanding the internal logic of team sports for solving tactical problems and learning is discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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