"Not just about the sport": Exploring the sport and peer experiences of youth with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the benefits of sport, there is a limited understanding of how to initiate and maintain sport participation among youth with physical disabilities (PDs). Peers and the unique support they provide may be one way to meet these needs. However, research on peer support in the context of sport among youth with PDs is lacking. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore the role of peers in supporting youth with PD's sport participation using self-determination theory (SDT) as the guiding framework. Eight youth with PD from the Greater Toronto Area were interviewed using verbal discussion and relational mapping to elicit further detail. Data were analyzed using an inductive-deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), with SDT as the deductive guiding framework. The youth (aged 13 to 18 years) participated in a variety of sports, predominantly wheelchair basketball (n = 4) and at a recreational level (n = 6). Key themes and sub-themes of the youths' progression through sport and the changing role of peers throughout their sport experiences were expressed. These included youths' development through sport, multi-level need thwarting (e.g., victimization) and supporting (e.g., socialization) behaviours, and the manifestation of their sport internalization (e.g., identifying with teammates). Suggestions for improving and creating new sport programs for youth with PD were provided such as having more opportunities for reverse integration or inclusive programs. Overall, peers may assist in creating positive sport experiences for youth with PD by fulfilling the three basic psychological needs of SDT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".