The Importance of Leisure in the Lives of Persons With Congenital Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although occupational therapists emphasize a balance among the three occupational areas of self-care, productivity, and leisure in people's lives, leisure often is focused on less than the other areas in both the research literature and clinical practice. Very little research has been conducted on the benefits of leisure activities in adults with congenital disabilities. The information contained in this article is a secondary analysis of the interview protocols of nine adults (30-50 years of age) with either cerebral palsy or spina bifida. The primary purpose of the interview was to determine protective processes surrounding turning points in the lives of persons with disabilities. This secondary analysis allowed us to determine the benefits and meaning of leisure for this population. Consistent with literature that focused on either persons without disabilities or persons with acquired disabilities, the participants in the present study reported that involvement in leisure activity provides mental and physical health benefits, enjoyment, opportunity to develop a self-concept and increase self-esteem, and opportunities to build and enhance social relationships. All these benefits enable people to find meaning in life through doing, belonging, and understanding self in the context of their worlds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".