An evaluation of quality participation experiences in inclusive recreation programming for adults who have an intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who have an intellectual and/or developmental disability (IDD) may benefit physically and psychosocially from engaging in recreation. This qualitative description study focused on the Inclusion Resource Team programme, an inclusive municipal recreation programme for adults who have an IDD, and explored elements that may lead to optimal recreation experiences. Interviews were conducted with 4 participants, 6 caregivers, and 11 staff. Guided by the Quality Participation Framework (QPF), a thematic analysis examined factors contributing to quality experiences within the programme. All three environmental conditions (physical, social, programme) and six building blocks (autonomy, belonging, challenge, engagement, mastery, meaning) of the QPF contributed to participants’ experiences. Some participants experienced barriers to ‘belonging’ and ‘engagement’. Findings support using the QPF in inclusive recreation for adults who have an IDD. Attention must be given to fostering belonging and engagement and environmental conditions that may contribute to these building blocks are identified.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".