Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Executive Summary: The central research question of this study is to investigate if there is a case for the inclusion of adaptive sport in the NCAA. This study is important because of issues of equity, the sociocultural perceptions of disability and adaptive sport, the physical, social, psychological, and societal benefits of sport participation, and recent education and employment-population ratio statistics in the United States. Supporting this central question are five inquiries (the dependent variables of the study): What are the barriers and challenges for collegiate adaptive sport? What are the growth opportunities for collegiate adaptive sport? What are goals for the future of collegiate adaptive sport? What are integration strategies for collegiate adaptive sport in the NCAA? Is sport a major life activity? Based on the literature, four themes stand out regarding the advancement of collegiate adaptive sport. First, there are legal aspects such as Title IX, the Rehabilitation Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act that shape the current landscape of collegiate adaptive sports. Second, the greatest momentum for change in the NCAA could come from institutions and conferences taking a leadership role in championing change and pressuring the interdependent network of the NCAA. Third, the experience of females in collegiate athletics could be used to understand some of the challenges for adaptive sport and the top-down initiatives that could help the growth of adaptive sport. Fourth, the advancement of adaptive sport will require change in the current system and the critical change factor model by Fay (1999) can be used as a framework to understand what change factors could be effective. The research question was examined through qualitative interviews with stakeholder groups affiliated with the landscape of collegiate adaptive sport. These groups included collegiate adaptive sport athletes (A), collegiate adaptive sport staff (B), athletic department staff (C), and external organizations (e.g. national governing sport bodies) (D). The interviews were thematically analyzed to yield key themes and recommendations as they pertained to the dependent variables. There were 38 participants in the study with 3, 21, 8, and 6 people from groups A through D respectively. NCAA status for adaptive sport was found to be a desirable goal for the future and there are frameworks that can make it possible (e.g. the ECAC Inclusive Sport model). However, there must be a critical mass of adaptive sport athletes, a growth of and greater concentration of programming at the collegiate level and more purposeful and effective support from the top-down. Recommendations for how stakeholders could collaborate to grow adaptive sport at the collegiate level include: • Invest in K to 12 adaptive sport programming • Educate senior leaders of institutions and organizations about disability and adaptive sport • Create a resource guide for NCAA institutions for adaptive athlete recruitment and training • Develop an “Emerging Adaptive Sports” program in the NCAA • Create a Senior Disability or Inclusion Administrator designation for athletic departments • Expand on the ECAC Inclusive Sport Principles 1 through 3 to other conferences • Implement able-body inclusion and consider coed teams in collegiate wheelchair basketball Recommendations for future research include examining effects of K-12 programming on participation levels in adaptive sport, adaptive athlete perceptions of able-body participation in adaptive sport, the appropriate number of sponsors for an “Emerging Adaptive Sports” program, the qualitative and quantitative impact that collegiate adaptive sports programs have on their institutions, further research on sport as a major life activity, adaptive athlete experiences on coed teams, and key leader perceptions (e.g. Athletic Directors) of disability and adaptive sport.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».