MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161387120 · doi:10.1123/apaq.25.2.95

Physical Activity of Youth with Intellectual Disability: Review and Research Agenda

2008· review· en· W2161387120 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityInclusion (mineral)Physical activityPsychologyMEDLINEPopulationData sourceGerontologyResearch designApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceSociologyPhysical therapyComputer scienceEnvironmental healthSocial scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review characterizes physical activity behavior in youth with intellectual disability (ID) and identifies limitations in the published research. Keyword searches were used to identify articles from MEDLINE, EBSCOhost Research Databases, Psych Articles, Health Source, and SPORT Discus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses up to June 2007. Data were extracted from each study using a template of key items that included participant population, study design, data source, and outcome measure. Nineteen manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. Findings were mixed, with various studies indicating that youth with ID have lower, similar, and higher physical activity levels than peers without disabilities. Only two studies provided enough information to determine that some youth with ID were meeting minimum physical activity standards. Significant methodological limitations prohibit clear conclusions regarding physical activity in youth with ID.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.292 · 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