An Opportunity for Sport or an Opportunity for Development: Is Special Olympics Perceived as Contributing to Psychosocial Development and Social Inclusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport is a cultural phenomenon that has spread throughout the world (Harvey & Houle, 1994). For youth, sport is perceived as a context that can play a major role in person’s psychosocial development across their life-span (Danish, Petitpas, & Hale, 2007). However, despite the increase in research in this field, very little work has examined how sport may play a role in the psychosocial development of youth with intellectual disabilities (ID). Moreover, an area of study that has also grown related to the lived experiences of individuals living with a disability including ID is social inclusion (SI). Similar to research related to psychosocial development, very little research has been conducted to examine whether the context of sport can foster social inclusion for youth with ID. Special Olympics Canada (SOC) is an organization “dedicated to enriching the lives of Canadians with an intellectual disability through sport” (SOC, 2010, “SOC Mission Statement”, para.1) and may be an organization that has the potential to positively impact the lives of its youth participants. Thus, the purpose of this research was to examine whether stakeholders perceived SO as impacting the psychosocial development and social inclusion. The results indicated that SO, by all stakeholders, is perceived as an organization that is facilitating the psychosocial development of its athletes through the incorporation of strong social support networks and the development of life skills. In addition, SO was perceived as facilitating social inclusion for youth, particularly in the context of school and their surrounding community.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".