Análise sociológica de práticas de combate dual em Portugal: estudo de caso dos praticantes avançados do judo e do aikido
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the sociological analysis of the cultures of aikido and judo coaches, we intend to demonstrate the social profile, defined by the socio-professional category and the socio-cultural status of individuals, determined as choices and the intensity of professional aikido and judo practice. To deepen the object of study, we define three hypotheses and create an analysis model for its operationalization. Several social techniques were used: direct observation, participant observation, semi-direct interview and survey research. The universe consisted of 60 coaches, at a national level, having been executed in order to complete 6 interviews with privileged interlocutors. The results reveal that there is a homogeneity between the social groups that practice the two combat sports, although they find differences in habits and values, according to sex, age and level of education. The analysis of the information mobilized points to a differentiation in the social level, in the visibility, in the career opportunities, in the profile and in the sports under study. The data point to a differentiation in the level of involvement, especially the type of practice/conception, the conditions of access, the family influence, the intensity of the practice and the associative participation according to the social profile and the sports under analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".