National approaches to promote sports and physical activity in adults with disabilities: examples from the Netherlands and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study described how the Dutch and Canadian governments promote high performance sports, recreational sports, and physical activity (PA) among adults with disabilities on a national level. METHODS: An internet-based study was conducted to identify and select relevant documents and websites containing information about the national approach to promote disability sports and physical activities in the Netherlands and Canada. RESULTS: Both governments promote high performance sports in similar ways, but use different strategies to promote recreational sports and physical activities. The Dutch approach is characterized by using time-limited programs focusing on enhancement of sports infrastructure and inter-sector collaboration in which municipalities have key roles. The Canadian government promotes recreational sports in disabled populations by supporting programs via bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. Furthermore, the level of integration of disability sports into mainstream sports differs between countries. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study may inspire policy makers from different countries to learn from one another's policies in order to optimize national approaches to promote disability sports and PA on all levels. Implications for rehabilitation It is recommended for policy makers of national governments to develop and implement policy programs that promote sports and physical activities among people with disabilities because of its potential impact on functioning, participation, quality of life, and health. Insight into national approaches to promote sport and physical activities is relevant for rehabilitation practice to understand ongoing opportunities for people with disabilities to stay physically active after rehabilitation through participation in home and/or community-based sport and physical activities. It seems worthwhile to integrate activities to promote sport and physical activities in rehabilitation in such a way that it fits with the current governmental approach. It is recommended to set up international collaborations to develop and share knowledge about effective and sustainable national approaches to promote sports and physical activities among people with disabilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".