Narrative environments and the capacity of disability narratives to motivate leisure-time physical activity among individuals with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Few individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) engage in the recommended amount of leisure time physical activity (LTPA). Yet little is known about how, and why, active individuals engage in specific types of LTPA. This study explored how a unique narrative environment and disability narratives motivated individuals with SCI to engage in LTPA. METHOD: Fourteen individuals with SCI from a physical activity program participated in approximately hour-long interviews. Interviews were then subjected to a narrative analysis. RESULTS: Individuals who used a restitution narrative (n = 6) were motivated to engage in functional LTPA because of the desire to maintain the body and restore the past self. The individual who used the chaos narrative (n = 1) preferred solitary LTPA as exposure to others with SCI was a constant reminder of the lost, pre-injury self. Individuals who used a quest narrative (n = 7) explored LTPA options that fit with their interests; these individuals were open to new types of LTPA, such as sport and outdoor recreation. CONCLUSION: The plot of three disability narratives can all motivate the pursuit of LTPA; however, not all types of LTPA are seen as equal. LTPA interventions can be enhanced through the lessons learned from this unique type of environment. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Despite individuals' views about their disability, they can still be motivated to engage in routine LTPA. Different theoretical determinants, such as health or social benefits, hold different relevance for LTPA among individuals with differing disability narratives. The environment provided by practitioners can therefore elicit some stories of SCI while stifling others. Open narrative environment will attract individuals to listen and maintain involvement in LTPA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".