MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124751149

Poor, Old 'Physical Education'

2014· article· en· W3124751149 on OpenAlexaff
Earle F. Zeigler

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeVariety (cybernetics)Public relationsPhysical educationPolitical scienceQuality (philosophy)Field (mathematics)PsychologyPedagogyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of physical activity (and related) health) education (“poor, old ‘PE’”) needs to assert its will to win more vigorously then ever before. Scholarly and scientific investigation of the past 60 years since Sputnik was launched in 1957 has identified a wide variety of findings proving that a quality program can provide highly important benefits to the growing child and youth. Societal developments, including other curricular demands, have undoubtedly created uneasiness within the overall field of education. In North America the time and attention devoted to the relatively few involved in external highly competitive sport for the few has been a negative factor. At the same time intramural athletics for the large majority of children and youth has not been available to the extent it should be. There is now doubt as to the field’s ability to achieve high status within education. Therefore, we must pledge ourselves to make still greater efforts to become vibrant and stirring through absolute dedication and commitment in our professional endeavors. Ours is a high calling since we seek to improve the quality of life for all people on earth through the finest type of human motor performance in exercise, sport, and related expressive movement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207