(Dis)ability and inclusion in youth sport: The perspectives and experiences of sport practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence indicates that effective coaching and teaching skills are fundamental to creating inclusive sport environments, yet sport practitioners continue to struggle in meeting the needs of young people who experience disability. It is well documented that meaningful opportunities for young people who experience disability to engage in sport and recreation are inadequate and inequitable. Consequently, many of these youth take part in segregated settings rather than integrated programs in the community. Purpose: Given the influential role of coaches in creating inclusive environments, the aim of this study was to examine sport practitioners' experiences coaching in these settings. The goal was to identify inclusive coaching practices with the potential to bridge segregated and integrated sport settings for youth who experience disability. Method: Using qualitative and interpretive description, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 sport practitioners who coached in segregated and/or integrated settings across a range of sports (e.g. handball, sledge hockey, rhythmic gymnastics, and swimming). Results: Thematic analysis of the data led to three themes: (a) (dis)ability and expectations, (b) a part of and apart from, and (c) coaching rewards and responsibilities. The themes represent a dichotomy of opportunities and struggles that occur within segregated and integrated sport settings. Conclusion: Recommendations for future coaching practices are discussed, in addition to consideration of the ways in which incompatible conceptualizations of disability and sport emerge in segregated and integrated youth sport.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".