MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360921236 · doi:10.1123/apaq.2022-0130

Evidence-Informed Recommendations for Community-Based Organizations Developing Physical Activity Information Targeting Families of Children and Youth With Disabilities

2023· review· en· W4360921236 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Bassett‐Gunter, Jennifer R. Tomasone, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Katerina Disimino, Victoria Larocca, Lauren Tristani, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, Jennifer Leo, Leigh M. Vanderloo, Dave Sora, Archie Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisseminationFocus groupMedical educationInclusion (mineral)Process (computing)Information DisseminationPsychologyMedicineKnowledge managementPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents of children and youth with disabilities (CYD) have expressed unique physical activity (PA) information needs. Community-based organizations (CBOs) require assistance to meet these needs. Guided by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II, this project established evidence-informed recommendations for developing PA information targeting families of CYD. This process involved a systematic scoping review to inform draft recommendations (k = 23), which were revised via a consensus meeting with researchers, knowledge users from CBOs, and families of CYD. Broader consultation with CBO knowledge users informed the final recommendations (k = 5) that fit within the following categories: (a) language and definitions, (b) program information, (c) benefits of PA, (d) barriers to PA, and (e) PA ideas and self-regulation tools. CBOs are encouraged to consider these recommendations when developing PA information for families of CYD. Future research will focus on the development of knowledge products to disseminate the recommendations to CBOs and support implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.010
Bibliometrics0.0190.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdapted Physical Activity QuarterlySame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207