Orígenes del taekwondo: un análisis etnográfico de su expansión en Ecuador/Origins of Taekwondo: an ethnographic analysis of its expansion in Ecuador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taekwondo in Ecuador has been practiced for decades, obtaining countless sport results through the years, without knowing for sure what is its birth and chronology (Ecuadorian Taekwondo Federation, 2020); so the objective of this research is to provide relevant information about its origin, development and expansion in which facts and circumstances of various actors will be described. The qualitative-descriptive method was applied through the techniques of documentary review and interview, which instrument was validated by the judgment of seven experts. The interview was applied in the second quarter of 2020, to 15 black belt coaches with ranks above the sixth dan, granted by the WTF from different provinces of the country, about the origin of Ecuadorian taekwondo, its evolution, anecdotes and sports experiences. This work will contribute to perfect the work of future taekwondo athletes, coaches and researchers, as well as to understand the complexity of the origins and development it has had through the years, which will guarantee the acquisition of a sense of martial and sporting belonging, as well as a national identity for the participation in international competitions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".