"It's not something that we just do for the sake of doing": Volunteers' experiences of quality participation in a community-based exercise program for people with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with physical disabilities may derive fitness and psychosocial benefits from participating in community-based exercise programs, when both the quantity (amount) and the quality (subjective experiences) of their participation is targeted. Although full participation includes both of these aspects, quantity is often prioritized. No deliberate investigations of how to promote aspects of quality participation for this population exist, especially among those facilitating program member participation. The purpose of this study was to explore the participation experiences of volunteers in a community-based exercise program for individuals with physical disabilities, to develop a holistic understanding of how to foster quality participation for program members in this setting. Seven student volunteers at Revved Up, an adaptive exercise program, participated in: a) interviews to develop a timeline of past volunteering and reflect upon their experiences with program members, before and after their 12-week volunteering term, respectively, and b) audio diaries to capture 'in-the-moment' accounts of subtle shifts in their perceptions of quality throughout the term. Thematic analysis theoretically grounded in interpretivism indicated that participants experienced meaningful aspects of, and outcomes derived from, their participatory experience at Revved Up. Aspects or outcomes were perceived to be more salient in nature if a participant experienced them in the past. A volunteer's meaningful participation often translated to increased effort to enhance program members' participation. This study provides preliminary evidence that volunteers experience valuable aspects and outcomes of participation in Revved Up, and may be promoters of quality participation for individuals with physical disabilities in an exercise setting.Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Canadian Graduate Scholarship and Insight Development Grant
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".