Is the Y-PEM useful for me? Perspectives of youth with visual impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore how youth with visual impairments perceive the usefulness of the Y-PEM (Youth and Young-adult Participation and Environment Measure) in capturing their participation and how information generated contributes to their understanding of participation experiences.Materials and methods A qualitative descriptive design was employed among 11 youth with visual impairment (3 females, 8 males) aged 17–24 (x¯ = 21, SD = 2.6) involving two remote sessions one week apart. First, the Y-PEM and QQ-10 questionnaire were administered to evaluate Y-PEM’s utility (value and burden), analyzed descriptively. Then, youth reflected on their Y-PEM results via an individual semi-structured Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI), analyzed thematically.Results A mean value-score of 77% (SD = 10.4) and burden-score of 19% (SD = 5.6) on the QQ-10 indicated the Y-PEM was perceived as valuable with relatively low burden. Three themes emerged from the interviews. Insights on participation revealed increased awareness of participation patterns and environmental factors. This led to a reflection on personal attributes about levels of comfort and familiarity, efforts required to participate, and personal preferences influencing participation experiences. Finally, approaches to participation elucidated strategies used in decision-making processes about pursuing participation.Conclusion Findings suggest the Y-PEM is useful in capturing and promoting reflection of youth’s participation patterns and environmental supports/barriers.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".