MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979367477 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1668972

Contextual strategies to support social inclusion for children with and without disabilities in recreation

2019· article· en· W2979367477 on OpenAlexaff
Brydne Edwards, Debra Cameron, Gillian King, Amy C. McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationInclusion (mineral)PsychologySocial supportDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Integrating children with and without disabilities in recreation programs is assumed to promote inclusion. How social inclusion is facilitated in recreation settings, however, is not fully known. This study aimed to explore how social inclusion is supported in a recreation program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A generic qualitative methodology was adopted. Seventeen children with and without disabilities registered for the same program were recruited. This sample included eight children with disabilities and nine typically developing children between the age of eight and 17. Two semi-structured interviews and three, two-hour observation periods were conducted with each participant. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze interview and observation data. RESULTS: This study revealed five themes that support meaningful aspects of social inclusion from participants' perspectives: (a) creating opportunities for children to communicate their interests and desires; (b) providing opportunities to choose self-directed activities; (c) strategically selecting and placing objects to support interactions between children with and without disabilities; (d) directly encouraging interactions between children with and without disabilities, and; (e) Having relatively equal numbers of children with and without disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: This study facilitates a better understanding of how meaningful inclusion experiences can be facilitated in recreation settings.Implications for rehabilitationParticipation in recreation programs that implement inclusive strategies could mitigate social isolation and loneliness for children with disabilities.Children with and without disabilities may experience greater sense of inclusion when recreation programs adopt a process-oriented and child-driven approach.Staff play a critical role in implementing inclusive strategies such as establishing group communication competency between children with and without disabilities, which could be supported by staff training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207