The Developmental Validity of Traditional Learn-To-Swim Progressions for Children with Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose was to determine whether traditional learn-to-swim progressions, leading to a 10-m front and 10-m back swim, were developmentally valid for children with physical disabilities. Forty children (22 boys, 18 girls) ages 5 to 12 years participated. They were classified according to disability type, functional sport classification, mode of ambulation, and flotation device use. Developmental validity was assessed by testing the children on rhythmic breathing, front float, front glide, front swim, back float, back glide, and back swim. Each skill was deemed successful if the child accomplished all performance criteria of that skill. Atypical progression was evident if a child performed a skill without the ability to perform skills previously listed in that progression. Atypical progression occurred in 32 (80%) children in the front skills and 22 (55%) in the back skills, which indicates that the traditional learn-to-swim progressions for both the 10-m front swim and the 10-m back swim were not developmentally valid for most children with physical disabilities in the conducted research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".