MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402869016 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckae114.252

S12-2: Perceptions of the #Wethe15 campaign to promote rights of physical activity among people with disabilities

2024· article· en· W4402869016 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kwok Ng, Damian Haslett, Jessica Noske-Turner, Emaa Pullen, David Legg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyPhysical activityEnvironmental healthMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicResearch in Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207