One size does not fit all: Australian and Canadian paralympic pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests athletes with acquired and congenital impairment have different sporting trajectories. This study aimed to extend this limited literature and explore the impact of impairment-onset on athletes' sporting development by examining their developmental trajectories, training histories, and experiences in organized sports. Two-hundred thirteen Australian and Canadian athletes from 18 Paralympic sports completed the Developmental Histories of Athletes' Questionnaire (DHAQ). Impairment-onset was organized into five groups of congenital, acquired during pre-adolescence (25 years of age). Results suggest athletes with late-onset impairments (i.e., acquired in early adulthood or adulthood) achieve sporting milestones and start incorporating various types of training at a later chronological age than athletes in early-onset impairments (i.e., congenital, pre-adolescence). However, the former group demonstrated a quicker progression through their careers (i.e., achieve milestones and incorporate training types at a faster pace). Each group had different training profiles, with clear preferences for certain conditions within each training type. In addition, most athletes with acquired impairments had experiences in able-bodied sports that were similar to their current Paralympic sport. However, experience in other Paralympic sports was reported less often for the entire sample (though, the rate of similarity between sports remained the same). Findings provide a range of implications and highlight the importance of considering impairment-related factors that influence the already complex development system when designing policies and allocating resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".