Exploring Solidarity in Action: Key Methodological Features for Collaborative Research in Physical Education
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.
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 | 0.203 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".