MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149479001 · doi:10.1080/02614367.2013.768692

Inclusive leisure experiences of older adults with intellectual disabilities at a senior centre

2013· article· en· W2149479001 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda Rossow-Kimball, Donna L. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamRecreationThematic analysisFocus groupSociologyPsychologyIntellectual disabilityLeisure satisfactionGender studiesGerontologyQualitative researchSocial psychologySocial scienceMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inclusive leisure is described as the extent to which people with and without impairments engage in leisure ventures together. The leisure experiences of four older adults with intellectual impairments, four ‘mainstream’ older adults and three staff members from a senior citizen recreation centre were captured using the interpretive phenomenological research methods of focus group interviews and field notes. Self-determination theory provided the conceptual framework for the study and facilitated the interpretation of the findings. Thematic analysis of the conversations revealed three themes with respective subthemes (a) shared leisure motivations, (b) expecting too much and (c) wanting even more. Although the mainstream older adults and centre staff recognised a need for more inclusive activities, older adults with impairments expressed satisfaction with the inclusive nature of the centre. The challenges and successes of the inclusive nature of the community-based senior citizens centre have also been discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure StudiesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207