Exercise behaviours of youths with intellectual disability under two conditions in a community programme
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behaviours of youths with intellectual disability (ID) during an exercise programme1 1. Funding support was provided by the Deborah Munroe Noonan Memorial Research Fund. were compared under two conditions: (1) two youths with ID were partnered with a typically developing peer (WTD); (2) two youths with ID partnered together (WID). The 12-week programme was conducted at a YMCA two days per week and included weight training and aerobic exercise. Physical activity level and engagement behaviours of the youths (WID = 10, WTD = 5) were directly observed and recorded. Verbal interactions were also recorded. Participants engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity 58.1– 62.9% of the time. Most time was spent in motor-appropriate behaviour and waiting; with almost no motor-inappropriate behaviour and off-task behaviour (3% of the time). No differences existed between conditions. Rate of verbal interaction for youths with ID was significantly higher in the WTD condition. Findings suggest that youths with ID exercise effectively when supported by peers in a community setting.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it