MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104852587 · doi:10.1123/apaq.2019-0082

Reverse Integration in Wheelchair Basketball: Stakeholders’ Understanding in Elite and Recreational Sporting Communities

2020· article· en· W3104852587 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michèle Verdonck, Jacquie Ripat, Peita-Maree Clark, Florin Oprescu, Marion Gray, Lisa Chaffey, Bridie Kean

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubAthletesRecreationBasketballEliteWheelchairInclusion (mineral)PsychologyApplied psychologyElite athletesSport managementTeam sportCompetition (biology)Public relationsIdentification (biology)Medical educationPhysical therapyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheelchair basketball (WCBB) often includes reverse integration (RI), defined as the inclusion of athletes without impairment in a sport traditionally aimed at athletes with an impairment. This study explored how RI in WCBB was understood by internal stakeholders. Data were gathered from athletes, coaches, and administrators at an Australian club competition and at a Canadian elite training center. Analysis of semistructured interviews with 29 participants led to the identification of eight themes. Collectively, the findings showed that RI was embedded within WCBB, RI was considered to be a way to advance the growth and improve the quality of WCBB as well as a way to increase awareness of WCBB and disability. There were some concerns that RI may not be equitable, as WCBB is a "disability sport." Stakeholders' perspectives on RI could provide useful information for sport policymakers, managers, administrators, sports organizations, and athletes interested in further developing WCBB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdapted Physical Activity QuarterlySame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207