The potential impact of experiencing social inclusion in recreation for children with and without disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Inclusive recreation programs can have individual and community impacts for children with and without disabilities. However, studies that explore the impact of such programs on children's attitudes are mixed. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of children with and without disabilities on the individual impact of an inclusive recreation program. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This study adopted a generic qualitative methodology. Interviews were conducted with participants between the ages of eight and 18 enrolled in the same program and each participant was interviewed twice. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze results. RESULTS: 17 participants were recruited for this study, which included nine children without disabilities (CWODs) and eight children with disabilities (CWDs). This study revealed five themes: a) CWODs have limited exposure to people with disabilities; b) CWODs and CWDs' hopes of change; c) CWODs learned how to interact with people with disabilities; d) CWODs reported greater perceived similarity in functional ability and hobbies/interests between themselves and CWDs, and; e) CWODs become more comfortable being around people with disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: This study helps broaden understandings of how inclusive experiences in recreation settings impact children with and without disability.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONChildren without disabilities can develop more positive attitudes toward children with disabilities in affective and cognitive domains after participating in an inclusive recreation program.Incorporating inclusive language into program design and implementation may promote positive attitudes toward diversity in recreation settings.Children without disabilities would benefit from more opportunities to interact with children with disabilities in unstructured, inclusive or integrated recreation settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".