Describing physical and sports activity in France: Review of the questionnaires of three national surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article focuses on the questionnaires of three national surveys on physical and sports practises in France in 1985, 2000 and 2010 (as 2020 has just been completed, the documentation is not yet available). Applying the process of the history of science, it analyzes the list of questions asked for each survey and the connected documentation, with the aim of identifying the descriptive intentions behind the drawing up of each questionnaire. The article demonstrates that there existed three descriptive goals that followed one another : tastes and ways of life (1985 questionnaire), the evolution of individually-organized sports practices (2000 questionnaire) and the standardization of a statistical tool including important ministerial preoccupations (2010). On the one hand, it draws the conclusion that translating an institutional request into a survey questionnaire always implies a mismatch. On the other hand, it also draws the conclusion that in France the national survey has evolved from being a descriptive academic tool of physical and sports practices to being a more multi-purpose descriptive tool that today gives an important role to concerns regarding management of physical and sports activities.
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 | 0.099 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".