Punching Parkinson’s: The Experience of No-Contact Boxing among Older Adults Living with Parkinson’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction No-contact boxing is becoming a popular exercise-based program to improve symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease (PD), with growing scientific evidence. While many studies have demonstrated its physical, cognitive, and social benefits, fewer studies have focused on how participants perceive its benefits on everyday activities.Aims This exploratory study aimed to investigate participants’ experiences with no-contact boxing and self-perceived improvement in the completion of everyday tasks.Methods A descriptive qualitative design was used. Two focus groups were conducted.Results Nine participants completed the study. Six themes emerged: (1) Camaraderie in the group creates a sense of social connection, (2) Self-perceived improvement in self-care and productivity (3) Positive experience due to the program approach, (4) Self-perceived physical and mental benefits, (5) Punching the bag as a symbolic of fighting PD, and (6) Increased motivation to pursue other exercise programs.Conclusions No-contact boxing brings many self-perceived benefits to older adults living with PD.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it