MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998792608 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1710772

Outdoor recreation among wheeled mobility users: perceived barriers and facilitators

2020· article· en· W2998792608 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ashley Menzies, Carolyn Mazan, Jaimie Borisoff, Johanne Mattie, W. Ben Mortenson

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRecreationWheelchairPsychologyData collectionApplied psychologyBusinessInternet privacySociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Participation in outdoor recreation is associated with improvements in mental, emotional, and physical health. Individuals with impairments affecting mobility, such as wheelchair users, face environmental, physical, and social barriers to participation in outdoor recreation. There is limited research on outdoor recreation participation among wheelchair users, especially concerning informal recreational opportunities. Formal programmes that offer access to outdoor recreation are often oversubscribed and also do not enable opportunities to participate more spontaneously. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the experiences and impact of participation in outdoor recreation activities by wheelchair users, with an emphasis on more informal activities; and (2) to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to participation in outdoor recreation activities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were the main means of data collection in this interpretive description study; this was supplemented by photographs of activity involvement provided by participants. These data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Fifteen Canadian wheelchair users participated in the study. Three themes emerged following analysis: (1) Into the Woods explores participants' current outdoor recreation experiences, (2) Ain't No Mountain High Enough looks at the barriers and challenges participants face, and (3) Just Around the Riverbend discusses participants' desired changes to enable their further participation. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted participants' current experiences, their perceived barriers, and several ways to enhance outdoor recreation participation among wheelchair users, including: developing new adaptations, creating policies, increasing access to affordable equipment and programmes, and reducing barriers in built and natural environments.Implications for rehabilitationWheelchair users participate in a wide variety of outdoor activities.Wheelchair users experience various barriers and challenges when participating in outdoor recreation.Despite recent improvements, environmental changes are needed to allow wheelchair users to access outdoor recreation.Further development of adaptive equipment is needed in order for wheelchair users to access their desired outdoor recreation activities.

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)0.002
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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207