Conceptualizing participation in context for children and youth with disabilities: an activity setting perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This article considers the conceptualization, operationalization and implications of "activity settings" for research on the recreation and leisure participation of children and youth with disabilities. Activity settings are contextualized settings that situate child and youth activities and their participation experiences. We discuss activity settings as an important construct for considering environmental qualities that provide opportunities for beneficial participation experiences for children and youth with disabilities. The article considers existing research using the concept of activity settings, the conceptualization of environment and contemporary issues in the measurement of participation and environment, indicating how these are addressed by an activity settings approach. We then describe the development of two quantitative measures of recreation and leisure activity settings - one assessing environmental qualities and the other assessing youth experiences - that have the potential to inform researchers, managers and clinicians about relationships between environmental qualities and participation experiences. Finally, we consider the implications of an activity settings approach for research, theory building and clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: An activity setting perspective can enhance understanding of the recreation and leisure participation of children and youth with disabilities. The Measure of Environmental Qualities of Activity Settings (MEQAS) and Self-reported Experiences of Activity Settings (SEAS) provide unique assessments of environmental qualities and experiences from an activity setting perspective. Clinicians might use the SEAS alone to understand particular youth experiences in certain types of settings, which may be limiting or facilitating development. The combined use of the SEAS and MEQAS can provide experiential profiles linked to activity setting qualities such as structure, type of activity and social partners, providing a valuable source of information about youth programs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".