La validation d’une procédure d’évaluation formative en jeux et sports collectifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le « Team Sport Assessment Procedure (TSAP) » de Gréhaigne, Godbout et Bouthier (1997) fut initialement élaboré pour utilisation dans les programmes d’éducation physique au Lycée (14 à 18 ans). Les études de Richard, Godbout et Gréhaigne (1998 et 2000) ont regardé différentes facettes de son intégration aux programmes d’éducation physique dans les écoles primaires du Nouveau- Brunswick (5e à 8e année). La présente étude a pour but de continuer le processus de validation de cette procédure d’évaluation dans différentes activités d’apprentissages souvent exploitées par les programmes d’éducation physique (soccer et volley-ball) et de concevoir des versions modifiées favorisant une intégration graduelle des élèves dans le processus d’évaluation (évaluation par les pairs). Les résultats obtenus démontrent que le TSAP et ses versions modifiées fournissent des mesures valides permettant de discriminer la performance offensive globale au soccer et au volley-ball.
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 | 0.314 | 0.407 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".