Understanding and fostering quality sport experiences among military veterans with a physical disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with a physical disability have a right to full participation in society, including sport. Full participation can be understood as including both the quantity and quality of participation. While quantity is defined as the amount of participation, quality has yet to be conceptualized in sport. As a result, there is a lack of knowledge as to what constitutes quality sport. Moreover, how to create quality sport experiences is unclear. The current study explores understandings of quality sport among veterans with a physical disability, and how quality elements can be fostered. Eighteen veterans (15 men, 3 women) with a physical disability were recruited to take part in two interviews, exploring their views and experiences in sport. A thematic analysis indicated that four themes represent quality: group cohesion fostered through camaraderie with peers, communication, acceptance, and a shared focus; challenge fostered through mentally and physically challenging tasks with opportunities for risk and competition; having a role fostered through opportunities to have a prosocial impact; and independence and choice fostered through freedom and options within the program. A further three factors were identified as precursors to quality experiences: the physical environment, the social environment, and program structure. These findings, explored within the context of existing participation frameworks, both support and extend previous conceptualizations of quality. They provide insight into context-specific understandings of quality for sport and the military. More broadly, the study contributes towards the literature on parasport participation, and provides a framework for practitioners aiming to develop quality programs.Acknowledgments: SSHRC; Wounded Warriors Canada
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".