MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800720743 · doi:10.5539/ies.v11n5p46

Family and Volunteer Partner Opinions on Young Athletes Project

2018· article· en· W2800720743 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmet Bіldіren

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesPsychologyTest (biology)Qualitative researchSpecial needsMedical educationApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine the impacts during the pre-school period of Special Olympics activities on the attitudes of children with special needs as well as the families of normal developing children along with the teacher candidates who are likely to work with disabled children in the future (volunteers). The study group was comprised of the parents of 45 special athletes from 6 different cities who have participated in the Young Athletes Project and whose opinions have been asked during the pre-test along with the parents of 60 partner athletes along with 119 volunteer partners, parents of 46 special athletes and 51 partner athletes as well as 107volunteer partners. Children with special needs and normal developing children were placed in an 8 week sports and game program within the scope of an integrated approach. Qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques were used in the study. The study results set forth that Young Athletes project has a positive impact on the opinions of the families of children with special needs and normal developing children as well as the opinions of volunteer partners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207