An Exploration of Sensation Seeking in Persons With Disabilities in Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study reports the findings of a study about sensation-seeking or high-risk/challenging sports in persons who have disabilities. DESIGN: Exploratory, cross-sectional, and descriptive. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-three recruitment e-mails were sent to potential participants. Data were collected through Qualtrics. FINDINGS: Mean score for Contextual Sensation Seeking Questionnaire for Skiing and Snowboarding (M = 30.21, SD = 8.18) was significantly lower than a sample of able-bodied skiers and snowboarders, t(239) = 2.75, p = .006. Mean for impulsive sensation seeking was lower than the same sample of able-bodied athletes cited in a previous study, t(240) = 4.56, p = .001. Means for the Zuckerman Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire subscales were impulsivity (M = 1.98, SD = 4.05) and sensation seeking (M = 6.75, SD = 2.68). CONCLUSIONS: This group scored lower in sensation seeking compared to able-bodied high-risk/challenging sports activities participants. Sensation seeking is not a motivating factor in this sample. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses could encourage rehabilitation patients to engage in challenging activities for personal and group mastery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".