Patterns of participation in recreational and leisure activities among children with complex physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with physical disabilities are at increased risk of limitations to participation in everyday activities. This study describes research examining the participation of children in day-to-day formal and informal activities (excluding mandated academic schooling). Using the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) measure, data on participation patterns were collected from 427 children (229 males, 198 females; mean age 10 y [SD 2 y 4 mo]; range 6-14 y) with physical limitations and from their families. The primary types of physical disability in the sample included cerebral palsy, spina bifida, acquired brain injury, and musculoskeletal limitations. Findings indicate a broad range of diversity and intensity of participation, with proportionately greater involvement in informal rather than formal activities. Significant differences in participation and enjoyment were found between males and females, and for children more than 12 years of age. Children's participation was less diverse in families reporting lower income, single-parent status, and lower respondent parent education. These findings provide a foundation for an improved understanding of the participation of children with physical disabilities, which can assist families and service providers in planning activities that fit with their child's preferences and ensure active participation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".