I Feel Good When I Move and Play: The Lived Experience of Well-Being of Youth with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rise in developmental disabilities among children is noted globally. Consequently, young people living with these disabilities find it challenging to carry out their daily living activities and participate actively in society. The many physical, social, political, and environmental challenges these young people face can affect their well-being. While the well-being of children has gained importance, the well-being of young people living with a disability remains an underexplored subject, thus leaving the voice of these most vulnerable underrepresented in the literature. A qualitative phenomenological study using semi-structured interviews was conducted with 14 Canadian children and adolescents aged 5 to 15 with special needs. Inspired by the philosophy of Jean Watson’s Human Caring Theory, the data analysis revealed eight central themes that describe the experience of well-being of young people living with disabilities as well as the actions of nursing students who contribute to their well-being in the context of a community program. The findings show the importance of play and mobilisation activities and having positive feelings and relationships with others for the well-being of young participants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".