Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study investigated the personal experiences of children with cerebral palsy engaging in a virtual reality play intervention program. The study involved in-depth, focused interviews that were conducted with 19 participants aged 8-13 who had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy. A constant comparative inductive method of analysis was used, and several themes emerged. Findings were interpreted using the theory of flow, the theory of self-efficacy, and the model of playfulness in virtual reality computer interactions. The three themes uncovered in the data include (a) doing play, (b) it's my way that matters, and (c) how I see me. The sub-theme safety also emerged. Findings from this study showed that children with physical disabilities are often limited in their play experience compared to their peers without physical disabilities. Children perceived engagement in a virtual reality play intervention program as an enjoyable experience which increased their self-competence and self-efficacy. Participants experienced a sense of control and mastery over the virtual environment and were provided a safe way to explore and challenge their abilities. Participants perceived experiencing flow and reported perceived physical changes and increased social acceptance from both peers and family. These findings provide evidence that virtual reality continues to show promise as a pediatric rehabilitation play intervention tool.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".