S12-2: Perceptions of the #Wethe15 campaign to promote rights of physical activity among people with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Since 1948, the Paralympic Games are a platform that gives opportunities to persons with disabilities for competitions akin to the Olympic games. This may be seen as fulfilment of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . Article 30, where people with disabilities have the to participate in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport on an equal basis with others. It is less known, how the disability community see the acceptability of these games. A campaign to raise awareness is through the #Wethe15 campaign. This study aimed to investigate the initial perceptions of the #Wethe15 campaign after the 2021 Paralympic Games. Methods Interviews and focus groups with representatives of disability rights groups from Canada, Finland, Malawi, Peru and the United Kingdom were carried out to investigate perceptions about the #Wethe15 campaign. The main questions were related to how the disability community could contribute or benefit from the campaign. Data were then translated, then transcribed in English and analysed through thematic analyses mapped against the concepts of availability, accessibility, and acceptability. Results In late 2021, 29 representatives (20 with lived experience of disability) took part in five focus groups and interviews. The campaign was deemed as acceptable due to the positive sentiment about the campaign to promote disability rights and sport in society. Yet, as #Wethe15 does not translate well into some non-English languages, more instructions of how to make it culturally appropriate was needed to broaden access to the main message of the campaign. Conclusions The campaign brought awareness of disabilities in society, yet the rights of physical activity to people with disabilities was less obvious, particularly regarding availability and accessibility. Partners of the movement need to find ways to fund mechanisms to promote more quality, accessibility and availability, while recognising the health benefits from participation in physical activity. Funding The study was commissioned by the IPC. The IPC had no influence the recruitment of the participants or interpretation of the results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".