The S.M.I.L.E. program: Socialization and parent reflections on a community-university collaborative program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016, the University of Toronto adopted the Sensory Motor Instructional Leadership Experience (S.M.I.L.E.), an adapted physical activity program from Acadia University. This 12-week (60-minutes/week) physical literacy program partners a child with a disability with a Masters of Professional Kinesiology student. Each child is provided an individualized routine of one-to-one and group-based activities. The current study was a two-phased evaluation. Phase one qualitatively explored parental/caregiver experiences of S.M.I.L.E.; phase two observationally captured social interactions between the children and their S.M.I.L.E. instructors. Two focus groups with eight parents/caregivers explored familial experiences with S.M.I.L.E. An observational checklist administered during weeks 2/3 and 6/7 was used to gather data on the in-session social interactions and instructional strategies. Focus group data were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis, while the observational data were analyzed using change scores (Week 2/3 to 6/7) and their associated effects (Cohen's d). Pearson correlations were run to examine the relationships between changes in child and instructor behaviours. Findings highlight the unique one-on-one opportunities provided through S.M.I.L.E. (e.g., parental pride and child self-exploration). Large improvements in child behaviours were observed for engagement (d=1.14), social bullying (d=-1.23), activity (d=1.15) and general (d=1.62) communication, and participation in mandatory activities (d=1.12), with small decreases in non-engaged behaviours (d=-.33). For instructor behaviour, moderate improvements were shown for activity feedback (.47). Large-sized relationships were shown between changes in child's and instructor's behaviours (rs=-.66 to .95).
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".