All aboard: users’ experiences of adapted paddling programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research has yet to examine the experiences of paddle boarders, or of kayakers with disabilities other than spinal cord injuries. The goal of this study was to explore the experiences of kayakers and paddle boarders in two adaptive paddling programs. METHOD: = 11) were completed. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULT: We identified three main themes. "Different Strokes" described the personal meaning participants ascribed to aspects of paddling, including valuing fun, exercise and relaxation. "Turning the Tide" illustrated the process of becoming a paddler, from doubting capacity to feeling competent. "Headwinds" explored paddlers' interactions with the broader social, institutional, and economic environments, such as inadequate funding and program aversion to risk. CONCLUSIONS: Programs offering a variety of adaptive paddle boarding and kayaking configurations enable paddlers to make valued choices about their participation. In addition to providing equipment and support to meet paddlers' functional abilities, program developers and clinicians should also consider individual preferences for exercise, socialization, risk taking, self-presentation of disability, and independence.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPeople living with physical, cognitive, and/or psychosocial impairments perceive kayaking and paddle boarding as meaningful activities offering opportunities to exercise, have fun, achieve goals, socialize, and/or relax on the water.Kayakers and paddle boarders value equipment options that meet their physical and disability-disclosure preferences.Despite the existence of adaptive paddling programs, participation may be restricted by program availability, risk management policies, and leisure funding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".