An exploration of the strategies used to foster quality participation in community-based physical activity programs for persons with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the context of disability, quality participation (QP) refers to being involved in a role or activity that extends beyond what a person does and takes into account a person's meaningful, subjective experiences. A QP experience encompasses feelings of autonomy, belongingness, challenge, engagement, mastery, and meaning. The operationalization of QP in community-based physical activity programming has been minimally examined for persons with physical disabilities. This study explored the fundamental practices and strategies utilized to foster key experiential indicators of QP within community-based physical activity programs for persons with physical disability in Ontario. Programs identified by a grey literature search were invited to participate. Program administrators from nine of fifteen eligible programs completed an online survey and a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts revealed the QP domains of belongingness and engagement, and a novel domain of validation, as the most common aspects that programs attempted to foster. Other emergent themes included strategies for establishing optimal conditions to achieve QP and outcomes of QP. A list of 66 strategies that programs may implement to achieve a quality experience for participants was generated. The prevalence of strategies focusing on belongingness, engagement, and validation in current programs suggest that the development of socially-related aspects of QP may be more valuable in this setting. These findings also allude to the importance of social experience in the development of participation-enhancing services and policies at community-based physical activity programs. A series of follow-up studies are being undertaken to validate the list of QP strategies.Acknowledgments: Funding is provided by: The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Partnership Grant (through the Canadian Disability Participation Project) The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (Canada Graduate Scholarships-Master's Program)
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".