The Spatiality of the Body in Football
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to address the critical issue of how the spatiality of the body intersects with football philosophy, with a specific focus on the context of training and match strategies. Traditionally, in football, coaching factors emerge within the training environment and are closely aligned with the intended game model. However, isolating these factors from the broader game model risks decontextualizing them, potentially undermining crucial aspects such as solidarity, team spirit, motivation, discipline, and rigor. Moreover, there is a pressing need to ensure that physical, technical, and psychological aspects are subordinated to tactical thinking and a relentless pursuit of victory during training sessions. This imposes a mindset of seriousness and rigor to effectively navigate the demands of complexity inherent in collective play. Drawing insights from philosophical discussions by Merleau-Ponty and Edgar Morin, as well as contributions from Manuel Sérgio and other scholars, this research seeks to deepen our understanding of the intricate relationships between players within a team. By exploring these dynamics, the study aims to shed light on how interactions among players shape team dynamics and influence individual players’ perceptions within the broader coaching context. Ultimately, the paper endeavours to contribute to a nuanced comprehension of the spatial and philosophical dimensions inherent in football training processes, thus offering valuable insights for both researchers and practitioners in the field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it