Exploring the Shared Meaning of Social Inclusion to Children with and without Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Perspectives of children with and without disabilities on social inclusion are seldom sought in the childhood disability literature, impeding the ability to provide inclusive experiences for all children. This qualitative study explored meaningful aspects of social inclusion from the perspectives of children with and without disabilities in an inclusive recreation program. METHODS: Drawing on the interpretive paradigm and subjectivity epistemology, this study adopted a generic qualitative methodological approach. Seventeen children with and without disabilities involved in the same inclusive recreation program participated in two semi-structured interviews. These interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged and were interpreted as dimensions of social inclusion: contextual, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. The contextual dimension included the freedom to choose activities and receiving equal attention from staff. The intrapersonal dimension was characterized by psychological safety and group fellowship. The interpersonal dimension included having positive authentic interactions and giving/receiving help. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may influence future program development and implementation to promote inclusive experiences for all children.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".