“We’re stronger as a family”: Family experiences and relationships in an adapted physical activity camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adapted recreation programs involving the entire family may offer ways to enhance relationships in families with a child living with a disability because they enable participating together in new and potentially empowering experiences. This study examined family members' perspectives on their lived experiences with their relationships within their family and how they perceived they were affected by their participation in an adapted summer camp for families with a child living with a disability. We conducted a collective case study with five families who participated in a week-long camp. A focus group was conducted with each family and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Participation in the camp impacted family relationships by reducing isolation for mothers; alleviating stress and anxiety which helped families bond; providing shared experience which led to mutual understanding, communication, and support; improving independence and confidence of the child living with a disability; facilitating sibling bonding and parent comfort with giving siblings more responsibility; and enhancing families' confidence to participate in family activities beyond the camp. These findings elucidate how participation in this type of program can impact relationships in families that include a child living with a disability and inform future program design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".