The Unheard Partner in Adapted Physical Activity Community Service Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community service learning (CSL), built on collaborative, reciprocal, and diverse disability-community partnerships, is a taken-for-granted pedagogical practice in adapted physical activity. Thus far, the CSL experiences of community members as they support student learning are virtually unknown. The purpose of the study was to understand how community members experienced an undergraduate adapted physical activity CSL course. Using an interpretative phenomenological analysis research approach, 9 adults (2 female, 7 male, mean age 50 years) experiencing disability participated in individual and focus-group interviews. Field notes and artifacts were also gathered. Relational ethics provided a heuristic framework to facilitate the interpretation of the findings. Four themes were crafted: (a) yes, we are willing partners; (b) but . . . we're in the dark; (c) subjected to being the subject; and (d) engage through relationships. Although overlooked as valuable collaborative and reciprocal partners, relational engagement remained central to the participants' CSL experience.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".