MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W49697860

El modelo de entrenamiento: una valoración cimentada del conocimiento de los entrenadores expertos de gimnasia

2011· article· es· W49697860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean Côté, John H. Salmela, Pierre Trudel, Abderrahim Baria, Storm J. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueRED: Revista de entrenamiento deportivo = Journal of Sports Training · 2011
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyMeaning (existential)PsychologyPhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

espanolUn enfoque del sistema experto (Buchanan y otros, 1983) se uso para identificar y conceptualizar el conocimiento de 17 entrenadores canadienses expertos de gimnasia de elite. El proceso de elicitacion del conocimiento incluyo preguntas abiertas y varios metodos de interrogatorio para descubrir, explorar y probar la informacion importante (Patton, 1987; Spradley, 1979) sobre el entrenamiento. Las entrevistas de todos los entrenadores se transcribieron literalmente, y los datos cualitativos no estructurados se analizaron inductivamente siguiendo los procedimientos y tecnicas de la teoria cimentada (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). El proceso inductivo de analisis permitio que las unidades significativas de las transcripciones de la entrevista se reagrupen en propiedades, categorias y componentes. Los componentes que surgen del analisis incluian (a) la competicion, (b) el entrenamiento, (c) la organizacion, (d) las caracteristicas personales del entrenador, (e) las caracteristicas personales del gimnasta y el nivel de desarrollo y (f) los factores contextuales. Estos componentes se convirtieron ademas en un modelo que representa el conocimiento de los entrenadores. EnglishAn expert system approach (Buchanan et al. 1983) was used to identify and conceptualize the knowlege of 17 Canadian expert highperformance gymnastic coaches. The knowledge elicitation process consisted of openended questions and various questioning methods to unveil, explore, and prove important information (Patton, 1987; Spradley, 1979) about coaching. All coaches’ interviews were transcribed verbatim, and the unstructured qualitative data were inductively analyzed following the procedures and techniques of grounded theory (Strauss & Cobin, 1990). The inductive analysis process allowed the meaning units of the interview transcripts to be regrouped into properties, categories, and components. The components emerging from the analysis consisted of (a) competition, (b) training, (c) organization, (d) coach’s personal characteristics, (e) gymnast’s personal characteristics and level of development, and (f) contextual factors. These components were further developed into a model representing coaches’ knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRED: Revista de entrenamiento deportivo = Journal of Sports TrainingSame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207