228 Physical literacy and inclusion within the context of disability and impairment: A multiple case study approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Purpose Physical literacy (PL) holds significant importance in various organizational agendas, being prioritized as a core programming priority under the premise of inclusivity irrespective of ability. However, there is a notable gap in understanding PL within the context of disability and impairment, as application of PL often occurs through a lens of normativity and standardization by those who do not experience disability. This study aims to establish an evidence-based, context-specific and foundational understanding of PL and its inclusivity of all individuals regardless of ability level, that can be utilized to inform, guide, and support current and future programs. Methods Employing the communities of practice theoretical model, a multiple case study design was utilized to delve into three purposefully selected cases rich in PL and inclusive practices. Data was collected through face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders including participants, parents, practitioners, supervisors, and administrators. Supplemental data sources included direct observations, exploration of program documents, site photographs, and reflexive engagement. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to uncover stakeholder perspectives, providing context-specific insights into PL as an inclusive concept. Findings Three overarching themes emerged, elucidating the foundations of PL as an inclusive concept: environmental considerations, operating with intention, and ethical and informed practice. These themes intersect with one another to foster opportunities for PL development across age and ability spectrums. Conclusions The findings offer evidence-based insights into PL and inclusion practices, offering a framework to move beyond normative and standardized notions of PL development. Support/Funding Source Government of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Engage Grant (File No. 892-2021-1009).
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".