Ética, bioética y educación física: revisión sistemática de una necesaria convergencia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen Este artículo pretende identificar las publicaciones sobre ética y bioética en el campo de la educación física en revistas científicas. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura en enero de 2020 en las bases LILACS, SciELO, Web of Science, Biblioteca Virtual en Salud, PubMed, Scopus, Eric y SPORTDiscus. Se encontraron artículos en inglés publicados entre 2005 y 2018, de estos 12 se seleccionaron por los criterios de inclusión. Resultaron cuatro categorías: la educación física como medio para el desarrollo personal en escuelas, potencialidades del deporte como herramienta para la educación moral formadora de virtudes, nivel de conocimiento de los profesionales de este campo sobre la ética y la ética en la formación profesional. Si bien registran en la literatura cuestiones relacionadas con la ética y la bioética en la educación física, es necesario ampliar los estudios sobre este tema, todavía al margen de la producción científica en el campo.
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 | 0.145 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".