The physical activity monitoring study: Examining physical activity preferences among children and youth with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and youth with disabilities (CWD) are less physically active, and participate in less community-based sport and physical activity programs than their typically developing peers. This is problematic because there are numerous health benefits associated with regular physical activity (PA) participation, including physical and social well-being and quality of life. The PA patterns of children and youth without disabilities has received some attention in the literature, however, little is known about the PA preferences of CWD. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine PA preferences of CWD. Methods: Participants (n=34; Mage = 15.35 ± 3.26 years; 62% male) completed a one-time, paper and pencil questionnaire consisting of a series of questions related to PA and sedentary behaviour and preferences related to types of PA, intensity, location, and timing of activity. Results: Participants were most interested in swimming (74.2%), basketball (41.9%), and soccer (38.7%). The most preferred time for taking part in PA programs was during the afterschool hours (41.9%). Participants were most interested in being active with their close friends (63.3%), in a gym setting (60%), and in PA that is perceived to be of moderate intensity (54.8%). Conclusion: Findings from this study shed new light on the desire of CWD to participate in community-based PA settings, alongside their close friends. The results of this study have implications for community settings which may have previously overlooked the opportunities to provide positive PA experiences for CWD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".