Efficacy of a Peer‐Guided Exercise Programme for Adolescents with Intellectual Disability
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: Peer support is strongly associated with physical activity of adolescents. This study examined the efficacy of a YMCA-based, peer-guided exercise training programme for increasing health-related physical fitness among adolescents with intellectual disabilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adolescents with intellectual disabilities and typically developing peer partners provided reciprocal support during 1-h exercise sessions that included aerobic exercise, weight training and stretching activities. The programme was conducted 2 days/week for 15 weeks and pre- and post-test fitness testing was conducted. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated significant improvements in curl-ups, 6-min walk and BMI. Exercise session attendance was high and participants typically completed all of the prescribed aerobic and stretching exercises, whereas weight training exercises were completed less consistently. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-guided model integrates social and instructional support for adolescents with intellectual disabilities and may encourage exercise participation in community settings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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