Physical activity is for everyone: a call to action for education and knowledge mobilisation to optimise the continuum of services for people with mobility disabilities in Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 2.7 million Canadians live with mobility disabilities. There is scientific documentation describing the importance of physical activity for maintaining or increasing functional capacity, which can support mobility and enhance social participation for people with mobility disabilities. However, numerous barriers continue to restrict participation in community-based physical activity for people with mobility disabilities. It is critical to address these barriers now. A consensus activity was conducted to identify challenges and solutions to overcome the barriers to physical activity promotion among people with mobility disabilities in Quebec, Canada. Three challenges were identified: (1) better services and communication continuum between research, clinical and community organisations, (2) enhanced knowledge mobilisation between research, clinical and community settings and (3) more education for healthcare professionals and community knowledge users regarding mobility and physical activity. Research priorities should focus on developing, testing and implementing existing interventions and programmes to ensure accessible physical activity and to facilitate participation in community settings for people with mobility 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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".