Exploring Solidarity in Action: Key Methodological Features for Collaborative Research in Physical Education
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
Purpose : This paper delves into the approach of solidarity in action as a collaborative research methodology in the field of physical education, based on Freire’s concepts of solidarity and circle of culture. In a landscape marked by competitiveness and hierarchy, this paper emphasizes the importance of mutual understanding, empathy, and collective struggle for social change in academia. Results : The paper explores a case study of an international project and highlights three key features: (a) intentionality in group creation, (b) levels of collaboration and horizontal relationships, and (c) democratic facilitation. These features stress the importance of collective action, open dialogue, and shared responsibility. Solidarity in action emerges as a methodology designed to cultivate communities, promote critical engagement, and address social injustices. Conclusion : By integrating solidarity in action into research, the paper advocates for a more inclusive, equitable, and culturally sensitive approach in physical education, highlighting the potential for positive change in academia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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