KEY FEATURES AND CHALLENGES OF SCHOOL PHYSICAL EDUCATION: A CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical education is an integral component of the overall development of students in the majority of countries worldwide [3].In the context of globalization and the integration of the national education system into the European educational space.it is important to examine advanced international practices in the organization of Phisycal Education (PE) in secondary schools.From our perspective.it is essential to investigate and analyze the available scientific evidence regarding the contributions and benefits of PE and sport (PES) in schools, both for students and for educational systems as a whole.Such analysis will facilitate the improvement of Ukraine's national PE system, enhance the effectiveness of classes, and strengthen the health of school-aged youth.Based on the analysis and synthesis of existing scientific and scientific-methodological literature, this section presents a description of the experience in organizing PE in various countries and regions of the world, as documented in official programs.legislative acts, distinctive methodological approaches, and statistical data [14].For the purposes of comparison with the Ukrainian context, we selected countries with a well-developed system of PE in schools (see Table ).Canada, for instance, is a federal state in which provinces and territories enjoy autonomy in education, including in the sphere of PE.This means that there is no unified national PE standard; however.all provinces follow common principles outlined in official documents that take into account structural features and regulatory frameworks, integrated into the curricula of schools across most Canadian provinces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".