Evaluation Model Construction of Civic and Political Teaching Quality of Physical Education Courses Oriented to Lifelong Learning–Based on Hierarchical Analysis Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper constructs a scientific and systematic model for evaluating the quality of Civic and Political teaching in physical education courses with the core concept of establishing morality and combining the intrinsic requirements of collaborative parenting between physical education courses and Civic and Political education.The evaluation indicators use the hierarchical analysis method to assign weights to the established indicators, and at the same time, the consistency test is carried out to ensure that the weights are assigned reliably.The evaluation model is applied to a sports college, scored by questionnaire survey, and combined with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to realize the rating division of the teaching quality of the college.At the beginning of the study, the first-level indicator "Chinese sportsmanship" was rated by experts as low, with a mean value of 2.4, so it was revised to "professionalism".The importance of the indicator "ideal belief" compared with other level 1 indicators in the evaluation model ranges from 2.24 to 2.65, with the highest weight of 0.308.A university implemented the evaluation model in this paper, and the quality of the university's comprehensive sports ideology teaching was rated at 4.36 points, which is a good rating.Among them, most students rated the secondary index under "ideal belief" as excellent.The results of the study can be used as a theoretical basis and a practical tool to promote the design and evaluation of the Civics teaching in college sports courses.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".