Enabling Integration in Sports for Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Promoting the health and social participation of adolescents with intellectual disability is important as they are particularly vulnerable to encountering difficulties in those areas. Integration of these individuals in integrated sports is one strategy to address this issue. METHODS: The main objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of the factors associated with the integration of adolescents with intellectual disability in sports alongside their non-disabled peers. Individual interviews were completed with 40 adolescents with intellectual disability and their parents, while 39 rehabilitation staff participated via either a discussion group or self-administered questionnaires. The Disability Creation Process (DCP) theoretical model was used to frame the analysis and the presentation of the findings (The Quebec Classification: Disability Creation Process. International Network on the Disability Creation Process/CSICIDH, Québec, QC, 1998). RESULTS: Various personal and environmental factors that have an impact on integration in sports were identified by participants. For example, attitudes, practical support, individuals' experiences in sports and in integrated settings as well as behaviour control emerged as important elements to consider. CONCLUSIONS: Integration in integrated sports can engender a lot of benefits for individuals with intellectual disability, their parents and non-disabled athletes. However, many barriers need to be removed before such benefits can be more widely realized.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".