MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023030776 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2013.791916

“It's the Participation that Motivates Him”: Physical Activity Experiences of Youth with Cerebral Palsy and Their Parents

2013· article· en· W2023030776 on OpenAlexaff
Lorie Shimmell, Jan Willem Gorter, Daphne Jackson, Marilyn Wright, Barb Galuppi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyPsychological interventionPsychologyFocus groupPhysical activityPerceptionService (business)Service providerApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNursingMedicineBusinessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth with cerebral palsy (CP) face significant barriers to participation in physical activity (PA). There is little information available about the nature of these barriers. Seventeen (17) youth and/or their parents participated in focus groups and individual interviews to identify factors that make it easy or hard to be physically active. Four themes emerged across functional levels: environmental and personal factors, limitations related to impairment in body structure and function, the perception that health benefits alone do not motivate youth to be physically active, and variable preferences for activity delivery. Dialogue with participants revealed that interventions to promote PA in youth should mitigate the interactions between personal and environmental factors that act as barriers to PA, and enhance the interactions that facilitate PA. Partnerships between researchers, policy makers, service providers, and families must be developed to address system barriers and build capacity in youth with CP and their communities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207