P.079 Body image in youth and adolescents with CP living in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Body image research in young people with physical disabilities like cerebral palsy (CP) has received very little attention. The goal of this pilot study is to ask youth with CP (of all levels of disability) directly about body image to learn their perspective. Methods: Our study includes quantitative data of quality-of-life measures, along with qualitative interview data summarized via thematic analysis. Our data is augmented with input from siblings (without CP) of our primary participants to represent a control group in the same family unit. Results: Twelve youths with CP (7 male, 5 female) participated in the study. Withe the higher score representing more positive the body image, scores averaged 17.93/25 (SD 4.73) for those with CP, 18.62/25 (SD 5.45) for those without CP. There were higher scores for males and those ≤13yo compared to 14-18yo. Interview thematic analysis uncovers themes of functional capability, the wish to reduce burden on family, pride in the CP identity, and mixed desirability of media representation. Conclusions: There is greater difference between age groups and genders than there is between those with CP and not. Interviews with participants revealed the important recurring theme of functional capacity connected to positive self-image, which may be considered justification for interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".