Sport and Physical Education for Development and Peace as a Wicked Problem
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
Wicked problems are unlike tame problems in ways that make addressing them highly challenging. Among the key, relevant differences between wicked and tame problems in the realm of sport and physical education as vehicles for fostering development and peace are: the lack of a prescriptive, agreed-upon definition to help us resolve a wicked problem; their absence of a clear end point when all agree that the problem has been resolved; their uniqueness among other wicked problems that might look similar; and, the high stakes involved for people‟s lives when we engage with a wicked problem. Those who strive to resolve wicked problems such as those identified as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals often turn to sport and physical education as their tool. However, their path to success in both design and implementation of appropriate programs does not always feature important aspects of wicked problems on which teachers and coaches can build. This paper examines whether that misalignment is a challenge for the design and implementation of sport and physical education programs intended to promote and foster development and peace and how to take into account features of wicked problems to strengthen such programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it