Benefits of recreational dance and behavior analysis for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders: A literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dance can be an entertaining experience that offers multiple benefits for those who participate. Unlike typically developing populations, studies examining benefits of recreational dance for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders are limited. In this review, we conducted a literature search, where “dance” was cross‐listed with all neurodevelopmental disorders across five databases, yielding 19 articles. Twelve studies involved children and youth with neurodevelopmental disorders aged 3–19 years, two studies included both adolescents and adults aged 14–22 years, and five studies included adults aged 20–65 years. Given the effectiveness of applied behavior analysis in enhancing skill development, it is encouraging that eight studies explicitly identified behavioral components. Results suggest potential benefits of recreational dance across studies using self‐report and objective measures, but limited research with sound methodology exists. There is a need for controlled research with measurable outcomes to evaluate programs tailored to these populations to improve core challenges and secondary outcomes such as quality of life.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it