Move for a better life: Access to community programs and social participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with disabilities report that their participation in recreation, physical health activities, partner relationships, and productive activities/work are either not carried out to satisfaction, or not at all. Further, recent research has identified inter-related systems related to physical activity opportunities, social interactions and relationships, and infrastructure, policy, and public systems that undermine accessibility to community-based healthy living and recreation programs. The purpose of this study was to engage in meaningful discussions with members of the disability community to co-construct strategies to overcome accessibility issues and understand the impact these programs have on social participation. Forty-six individuals from three Canadian cities participated in one of four World Cafes held in their respective communities. World Cafe is a methodology for facilitating constructive solution-focused conversation through collective intelligence. Participants were divided into groups of 3-4 people and invited to engage in iterative round-table discussions about accessibility to healthy living and recreation programs in their communities. A content analysis resulted in 17 strategies addressing the areas of representation and visibility (e.g., prioritize hiring people with a disability), finances (e.g., reduce direct costs for participants), connection and social support (e.g., foster social networks that provide informational support), and education and programming (e.g., enhance awareness of existing services and resources). The findings of this study provide objectives and strategies for enhancing access, success in promoting social participation, and longevity of these community programs. These findings could help inform important next steps in helping to increase access to physical activity opportunities for people with physical 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".