Participation of Children with and without Disabilities in Social, Recreational and Leisure Activities
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
Background One method of promoting children’s friendship development is through activity participation with peers. However, children with disabilities seem to engage in fewer of these activities, and when they do participate often do so primarily with adults. Materials and Methods This study compared activity participation and friendship in typically developing (TD) children ( n = 90), children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD; n = 65), and children with an intellectual disability ( n = 30) between the ages of 5 and 17 years. Parents completed a questionnaire about their child’s participation in social, recreational and leisure activities. Results The TD children participated in significantly more social and recreational activities and had more friends than the children with disabilities. Notable differences emerged among groups in the percentage of activities the children participated in with peers, parents and/or other adults. Some significant differences were noted between the ASD and intellectual disability groups. Conclusions Research concerning activity participation should continue to take into account not only whether children are engaging in activities, but explore more precisely ‘with whom’ these activities are occurring.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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