Identifying Facilitators and Barriers in Quebec Schools to Promote Inclusive Physical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inclusive physical education allows the development of social skills, attitudes, and awareness of peers about functional limitations and enhances the leadership skills of all children. However, the positive experience of children with functional limitations in inclusive physical education can be impacted by programs inadequate to their abilities and the limited training and knowledge of physical educators about teaching in consideration of their needs. The objective of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers experienced by physical educators to include children with functional limitations in physical education in Quebec schools. A cross-sectional descriptive study with an online survey was conducted with physical education teachers and daycare educators. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. A total of 149 participants (n = 130 physical education teachers) responded to the survey. Most respondents (79.5%) included children with functional limitations in activities with their classmates. However, 39.4% of respondents reported feeling not informed and not equipped to facilitate inclusion. This study identified the facilitators and barriers to physical education for children with functional limitations from the perspectives of physical educators, in Quebec schools, and the role of the latter to encourage inclusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".