Exercise behaviours of youths with intellectual disability under two conditions in a community programme
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".