Physical literacy and the participant perspective: Exploring the value of physical literacy according to individuals experiencing disability through composite narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical literacy (PL) is essential to the holistic human experience, emphasizing embodied capability and affording opportunities for inclusive engagement. Despite its recent use as a core programming element, PL from the experiential point of view of individuals experiencing disability has yet to be explored. Excluding these perspectives promotes a culture of ableism, one that devalues the embodied capabilities of those experiencing the world differently. The purpose of this study was to highlight the participant perspective related to PL and explore the value individuals experiencing disability attribute to PL and its development. Methods: as a conceptual framework, 13 participants experiencing disability participated in two focus groups. Participants' experiences were thematized via the use of thematic analysis, and voices were portrayed through composite narratives, highlighting the shared participant experience and value associated with PL. Results: . Composite narratives reflect PL as a valued means of exploration and learning, personal growth, and opportunity related to physical activity and social interaction. Participant value was considered to be enhanced via a learning climate affording opportunities for developing autonomy and a sense of belonging. Conclusion: This research provides an authentic understanding of PL within the context of disability, and what might be used to facilitate its development in such an environment. Individuals experiencing disability contributed to this knowledge and must be continually involved to ensure PL development is inclusive to all.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".