Segregated vs. Integrative Service Design in Disability Sport Culture: A Case Study on Recreational Sport Services in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to investigate the existing service design of athletic services offered at a higher education facility to a) develop insight on how such services may be related to concepts of segregated and integrative recreational physical activity and b) to help us understand how these services may be impacting persons with disabilities.A multimethod qualitative approach was used to develop an understanding of the perspectives and experiences of participants on these topics, with the aim of bringing together their knowledge to help inform service planning recommendations for physical recreation at higher education facilities.The results of the methods show that, overall, segregation seemed to have a negative connotation for participants, while integration seemed to carry more positive associations.It was also reported that service design can impact concepts of segregated or integrative participation.In this case study, the services were available for all and hence, did not illustrate segregation; however, service aspects such as fitness instructors not trained in adaptive fitness, ineffective fitness training certifications, fear, misconceptions and attitudes of people involved did play a role in favoring concepts of segregated participation.The information from the study, specifically the individual voices of participants may inform future studies related to designing fitness services for people with disabilities.vi Question 1.1: What is the importance of recreational sport for people with disabilities?........
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".