Exploring Dance Movement Therapy as Quality Physical Activity for People with Parkinson's Disease
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
This project explores the quality of physical activity people with Parkinsons Disease (PD) experience via a case study of a specialized Dance Movement Therapy (DMT) program, Dancing with Parkinsons (DwP), based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The Quality Participation (QP) model developed by Martin Ginis and colleagues (2016) served as the framework by which participants quality participation experiences in the DwP program, including the meanings and satisfactions they derived from participating in the program, were investigated. The objectives of this study were twofold: to explore the quality experiences of PD patients participating in the DwP program, and to better understand participants experiences in DMT through the lens of the QP model. Drawing on qualitative research methods, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight participants (two male and six female) from the DwP program. Thematic analysis of the data highlighted three key conditions that enabled the participation in the DwP program (physical environment, activity and social environment), and foregrounded three of the six themes defined in the QP model (autonomy, engagement and belongingness). This project aimed to contribute to research on DMT and to quality physical activity participation in general, with focused attention on participation among populations with PD specifically.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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