As aulas de Educação Física em questão: diferentes razões e maneiras de agir dos professores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO Ancorado na abordagem de análise do trabalho da clínica da atividade, este artigo examina a organização temporal e espacial das aulas utilizadas pelos professores de Educação Física. Neste estudo qualitativo multicasos, foram realizadas observação e filmagem das aulas. Depois, os professores assistiram aos vídeos e analisaram seu trabalho e de seus pares por meio do método da autoconfrontação simples e cruzada. As características do contexto escolar, a interação pedagógica com os alunos e as concepções dos professores sobre as aulas influenciam as suas razões e maneiras de agir na organização e no uso do tempo e do espaço. Os professores também desenvolvem uma série de estratégias de ensino para otimizar e dinamizar o processo de ensino e aprendizagem. A organização temporal e espacial das aulas e as estratégias de ensino dos professores fazem parte dos saberes da ação pedagógica e contribuem para a busca da eficácia no ensino.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".