Re‐injecting spontaneity and balance in family life: parents’ perspectives on recreation in families that include children with developmental disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
METHODS: Grounded in the naturalistic paradigm, a mixed-method research design (survey questionnaire, n = 65; and interview, n = 16) was used to explore the nature and benefits of, and constraints to, family recreation in families that included children with developmental disability. Statistical analyses were conducted on the quantitative data, while key theme and constant comparative methods were used to analyse the qualitative data. RESULTS: These analyses revealed that family recreation most often involved small combinations of family members - usually mothers and their children - in physical recreation activities (e.g. swimming, walking, bike riding). Parents viewed these interactions as beneficial for enhancing family relationships and providing children, particularly those with a disability, opportunities for skill and self development within an accepting and supportive environment. Difficulties in coordinating family members schedules, finding activities to accommodate wide age and skill ranges, planning demands, and limitations in marketing and promotional materials were among the constraints most commonly identified in relation to the family as a whole and the children with developmental disability. Links to existing family and leisure research, family systems theory, and considerations for future research also are 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".