Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explored the current context of aquatic rehabilitative practices in Canada. More specifically, three inter-related topics on Aquatic Therapy (AT) and Aquatic Physical Therapy (APT) in Canada were examined: 1) the development of knowledge, training and expertise on APT and AT, 2) recognition and acceptance of cultural and social authority on AT and APT (Starr, 1982), and 3) the practitioners’ perceptions of barriers to practicing and participation in aquatic therapy. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with seven (7) stakeholders including Ontario aquatic physical therapists, aquatic therapists, instructors on aquatic therapy and members of the College of Physiotherapy of Ontario (CPO) and the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA). Interviews were complimented with open-ended questionnaires sent to Chairs of Physical Therapy programs in seven Canadian Universities. Our research identified the most common means of acquiring knowledge on aquatic rehabilitative practices was through University Physiotherapy program curriculum; private training courses; and in-house within facilities where aquatic therapists and aquatic physical therapists are employed. This thesis also examined facilitators/barriers to practicing and receiving aquatic therapy and aquatic physical therapy. Through critical analysis, this thesis reflected on the ways in which social and cultural authority (Starr, 1982) are constructed within the field of aquatic therapy (AT) and aquatic physical therapy (APT). Recommendations and areas for future research included specialized training courses by scope of practice, and increased in-pool practicum training within Physiotherapy programs in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".