Igniting fitness possibilities: Perspectives from youth, parents and staff on being able to participate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Igniting Fitness Possibilities (IFP) is an inclusive physical activity program designed to foster a passion for physical activity among youth who are typically developing but inactive and youth with disabilities who as a group tend to engage in lower levels of physical activity and higher levels of sedentary behavior. Across youth, physical activity drastically declines during adolescence and physical activity patterns that are developed during this time often continue into adulthood. Purpose: To explore the experiences of participants in an IFP pilot for youth in grades 8 to 12 and illuminate the supportive components of IFP for youth participants. Method: A qualitative descriptive study employed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with youth who participated in the full 16-week program (n=4), their parents (n=4) and staff (n=4). Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Youth described several ways that they found IFP to be both supportive and inclusive. These include providing: a safe and welcoming space for participation, opportunities for new experiences, social inclusion, and an environment that celebrates diversity and fosters interdependence. Conclusions: These results emphasize the effectiveness of the program in supporting youth of a variety of abilities to participate in physical activity. It is important to create a space where youth feel welcome and comfortable with exploring new physical activities, where peers and coaches are inclusive and empower youth's confidence to practice independence, and different abilities are celebrated. These goals are important to consider in the design of future inclusive physical activity programs for youth.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".