The sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and strategies to support their participation in sport: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programme leaders (PLs; e.g., coaches) are integral for fostering the quality participation (QP) of blind and partially sighted athletes. However, information about fostering QP for blind and partially sighted people is often inaccessible to PL. Informed by the Quality Parasport Participation Framework, we formulated this scoping review related to the sport participation of blind and partially sighted people and the strategies that support QP. Searching four databases, we screened 1245 studies and included 29 articles, generating insight related to study characteristics and the extent of in/direct references to the experiential elements of QP. After interpretive analysis, we constructed three principles to reconceptualize sport participation in relevant and affirming ways for blind and partially sighted athletes, as well as 33 foundational support strategies and 16 outcomes potentially associated with the QP. This project contributes to the visibility of blind and partially sighted athletes in the literature and in the Quality Parasport Participation Framework.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it