Diverse Users’ Experiences in Gyms: An Exploration of Person–Environment Fit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with a disability encounter many barriers in gyms, limiting their opportunities to experience health benefits associated with exercise. To better understand how to develop accessible exercise opportunities, this study examined person-environment interactions from the perspectives of diverse participants as they navigated gyms. A think-aloud protocol involving a series of tasks completed in two gyms was adopted to capture perceptions of accessibility, usability, and inclusion. Directed content analyses of think-aloud transcripts were guided by the Universal Design-based framework. Fourteen males and 24 females between 18 and 68 years participated. Nineteen participants had a disability and/or impairment. Five themes illustrated how participants maneuvered, understood, and felt in the gyms, reflecting physical (e.g., equipment versatility), cognitive (e.g., accessible information), and social factors (e.g., interpersonal interactions). Findings provide an understanding of how functional gyms could be developed for people with and without a disability to support participation in exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".