A Secondary Guy: Physically Disabled Teenagers in Secondary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study explored the perceptions and experiences of teenagers with physical disabilities attending regular secondary schools. In particular, the study focused on social integration and the factors that influenced it. Social integration was defined as a sense of belonging in the school community. METHODS: A phenomenological approach was used to explore the viewpoint of physically disabled young people themselves. Seven secondary school students with ambulation disabilities were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. RESULTS: The findings identified both factors that facilitated and those that limited integration. Extrinsic factors included peer and staff support, negative reactions and inaccessible activities. Intrinsic factors included the disability itself, as well as strategies of self-exclusion, masking the disability, finding a niche, making fun of the disability, and educating peers. Interpretation of the findings suggested that the participants occupied a secondary place in their schools, as opposed to being fully integrated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists have the opportunity, expertise and responsibility to be instrumental in the process of ensuring that schools are inclusive and that their young clients are capable of participating fully.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".