Exploring the Relationship Between Quality and Quantity of Physical Activity Participation in Community-Based Exercise Programs for Persons With Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based exercise programs for persons with disabilities promote greater quantity of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) participation among their members, perhaps because of the quality experiences fostered by the program. This study aimed to explore the relationship between quality and quantity of physical activity participation in the context of community-based exercise programming and the role that gender plays in this relationship. Adults with physical disabilities (N = 91; Mage = 55, 49 men) from three community-based exercise programs across Canada completed a survey asking about quality participation (Measure of Experiential Aspects of Participation [MeEAP]) and LTPA. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationship between MeEAP scores and LTPA. Quality participation was not related to LTPA, even with gender included as a moderator. Men reported higher levels of LTPA and quality participation than women, highlighting gender differences that should be considered when researching and designing exercise programs for individuals with 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".