Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42180464›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Rethinking ethical governance of generative AI in sport pedagogy research: a discipline-sensitive perspective.

Amayra Tannoubi, Vlad Adrian Geantă, Viorel Petru Ardelean, Edi Setiawan, Fairouz Azaiez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Amayra Tannoubi *High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia.
Vlad Adrian Geantă *Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Arad, Romania.
Viorel Petru ArdeleanDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Arad, Romania.
Edi SetiawanFaculty of Teacher Training and Education, Suryakancana University, Cianjur, Indonesia.
Fairouz AzaiezHigh Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)-including large language models, image synthesis, and learning analytics tools, is increasingly used in pedagogical research for instructional design, feedback generation, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. However, discipline-specific ethical guidance remains limited, particularly in fields characterized by embodied learning and performance-based pedagogy. In sport sciences, GenAI applications intersect with motor learning, sensorimotor feedback, and learner autonomy, raising distinctive challenges related to academic integrity, transparency, authorship, data protection, and pedagogical validity. In this Perspective, we argue that existing institutional and international AI ethics frameworks, while essential, remain predominantly text-oriented and insufficiently responsive to the embodied, safety-sensitive, and movement-based characteristics of sport pedagogy research. This creates a governance gap in which AI-generated feedback may directly affect motor learning processes, learner safety, and skill acquisition trajectories in ways not adequately captured by generic AI ethics guidance. Drawing on research integrity standards, global AI governance principles, and motor learning theory, we identify key ethical tensions emerging from the integration of generative systems into sport pedagogical research and practice. This article develops a discipline-sensitive ethical framework through a structured, purposive, and theory-guided synthesis of relevant literature. We propose a set of priority orientations to support responsible GenAI use in this context, including strengthened human accountability, transparent disclosure practices, discipline-informed validation of AI-generated feedback, and enhanced protection of learner data. These propositions require empirical validation in real world sport pedagogy contexts. We position pedagogical validity, defined as alignment between AI-supported processes and established motor learning principles, as a novel ethical criterion not yet explicitly articulated in AI education governance. Finally, we outline a research and policy agenda for empirically validating this framework across diverse embodied learning environments and clarify the logic used to identify and synthesize literature across AI governance, research integrity, and motor learning scholarship. This conceptual, theory-guided Perspective is intended to inform researchers, ethics committees, and higher education institutions seeking disciplines-sensitive approaches to the responsible integration of GenAI in embodied learning and performance-based education contexts.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEthics, ResearchGenerative Artificial IntelligenceSportsTeachingHumansLearningAI disclosuregenerative artificial intelligencehigher educationmotor learningpedagogical validityresearch ethicssport pedagogy

Identifiers

PMID42180464
PMCPMC13194516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.