Scootering for Children and Youth Is More Than Fun: Exploration of a Feasible Approach to Improve Function and Fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Describe scootering as a physical therapy intervention for children/adolescents with mobility limitations within the "F-Words for Child Development" (fitness, function, family, friends, fun, and future) and through motion analysis. METHODS: Perspectives of scootering were explored using the holistic "F-words for Child Development" recommendations for pediatric rehabilitation and through 3-dimensional instrumented motion analysis of children/adolescents with cerebral palsy and children/adolescents with typical development. RESULTS: Scootering was consistent with the F-words tenets for rehabilitative best practice. Many of the motion characteristics of scootering reflected desirable exercise and gait attributes relevant to children/adolescents with cerebral palsy. CONCLUSIONS: Scootering is a feasible, functional, and fun activity that has the potential to address many aspects of fitness, function, and gait; meet the needs of families; and provide opportunities for interaction with friends. It is a physical therapy intervention that has the potential to contribute to future health and well-being of children with disabilities. VIDEO ABSTRACT: For more insights from the authors, see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/PPT/A331.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".