Using Group Concept Mapping to Conceptualize Meaningfulness in Physical Education With Secondary Students
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 : As a contribution to the ongoing Meaningful Physical Education (PE) research, this study seeks to understand secondary students’ conceptualizations of meaningful PE experiences, using Group Concept Mapping. Methods : Participants were secondary students ( n = 55) in an urban sports academy. Conceptualizations of meaningful PE experiences were derived through three main activities using Group Concept Mapping: (a) brainstorming, (b) sorting, and (c) rating for importance. Results : The meaningfulness in PE maps depict synthesized statements distributed across four clusters: kindness, physical activity, fun, and quality education. The most important ideas were: “being treated with respect,” “working hard,” “having fun,” “being active,” and “equality.” Conclusions : The most significant Meaningful PE statements demonstrated the importance of blending the Meaningful PE features based on school context while making pedagogical decisions following the principles of autonomy and inclusivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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