Up on the hill: the experiences of adaptive snow sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Literature supports the benefits of involvement for people with disabilities in adaptive snow sports. However, the literature is lacking in understanding the experiences of those involved in these programs or understanding what facilitates participation in adaptive snow sports. OBJECTIVES: This project aims to (1) explore the experiences of people with disabilities participating in adaptive snow sports; and (2) to explore the factors which impact participation in adaptive snow sports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 20 former and current participants from an adaptive snow sports program using a volunteer recruitment strategy. Data were collected through individual or dyadic semi-structured interviews and on-site observations. Data were transcribed verbatim and thematic data analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from this study: (1) mountain top moments, which described the outcomes of successful participation in adaptive snow sports; (2) finding your line, which refers to the facilitators involved in adaptive snow sports participation; and (3) icy slopes and trailblazing, which includes the social, physical, and institutional environmental factors that impede quality participation. CONCLUSION: Adaptive snow sports provide people with disabilities opportunities to develop community, engage in new and meaningful experiences, and to overcome challenges. The accounts given by people with disabilities of their experiences in adaptive snow sports suggest that key factors for participation are the involvement of student-centered instructors and the provision of adaptive equipment.Implications for rehabilitationAdaptive snow sports provide opportunities for people with disabilities to learn new and meaningful skills, develop meaningful relationships, and enjoy the outdoors.Knowledgeable instructors who are able to meet people with disabilities unique needs is an essential component to adaptive snow sport programs.Additionally, the provision of adaptive equipment is an important aspect of adaptive snow sport programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".