Individuals experiencing disability and the ableist physical literacy narrative: critical considerations and recommendations for practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy (PL) has been readily accepted and integrated globally, including organizations affording services to individuals experiencing disability. Despite its uptake, recent research has illustrated that understandings of PL reflect the normative standards of those who do not experience disability, leading to practices that diminish the unique and embodied capability of others while simultaneously validating ableism. While a shift towards recognizing and valuing the heterogeneity associated with PL has recently occurred, the ableist narrative persists. As a result, the operationalization of PL directly contradicts its conceptualization, fostering a physical activity climate that continues to marginalize individuals experiencing disability. With this in mind, this paper critically unpacks PL, challenging the existing ableist narrative and offering suggestions to heighten the level of inclusivity that underscores PL. Pathways, where physical activity professionals contribute to reproducing ableism, will be discussed.
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 | 0.061 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".