A Delphi study of trends in special and inclusive recreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to ascertain special and inclusive recreation trends as identified by practitioners and educators in this type of recreation. The study employed a modified Delphi technique that utilized a list of trends and asked experts to evaluate and rate each based upon their individual experiences. A total of 25 jurors (median age = 45.9; 15 female and 10 male; 19 practitioners and 6 educators) participated in the study. Jurors rated 46 trends identified by the researchers and identified an additional 20 trends to be evaluated. The numbers of jurors for rounds one through four were 25,24,25, and 24, respectively. The results of this study pointed toward a promising future for special and inclusive recreation. Particularly noteworthy is that inclusive recreation appears to be becoming more widely embraced than in previous years. Reflective of a growing inclusive recreation movement are trends related to inclusion as an approach to programs and services and increased continuing education efforts in the area of inclusive recreation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".