Disability-Specific Learning Opportunities for Qualified Exercise Professionals to Build Competencies: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many qualified exercise professionals (QEPs) lack adequate training about exercise for persons with disabilities (PWDs), leaving them without the required abilities to provide PWDs with quality exercise experiences. Little is known about disability-specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes delivered in learning opportunities for QEPs. We aimed to identify (a) what content is delivered and (b) what modes are used to deliver disability-specific learning opportunities for QEPs. Peer-reviewed and gray literature searches, advanced Google searches, and expert consultations were undertaken. Twenty-five learning opportunities were identified. Most content focused on knowledge provision, with few opportunities for QEPs to develop skills and appropriate attitudes. Almost all content was delivered through passive learning methods, with little reported inclusion of PWDs in content development. It is essential to rethink QEP curriculum content and delivery about PWDs. This study provides valuable insight regarding the current limitations and areas for improvement concerning disability-specific learning opportunities available to QEPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".