Comparing performance and experience in a conventional and accessible gym: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Exercise offers benefits for people with a disability, yet environmental barriers hinder their participation in gyms. Universal design (UD) may enhance gym accessibility by addressing diverse users' needs, but greater empirical evidence is needed. This mixed methods study compared diverse participants' experiences of barriers and facilitators in a conventional gym and a gym adapted with UD. METHODS: Participants were instructed to think aloud as they completed five tasks in each gym while being audio and video recorded. Video observations were used to assign data points to floor plans of each gym, documenting where and how often barriers and facilitators occurred. Directed content analysis of transcripts captured participants' perceptions of each gym. Joint display tables integrated behavioural mapping and think aloud data. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants with and without a disability participated. The adapted gym yielded fewer barriers and more facilitators than the conventional gym. Seven themes encompassed participants' perceptions of each gym environment. Data integration identified key physical, social, cognitive, sensory, and environmental factors that affect accessibility and inclusion in gyms. CONCLUSIONS: UD can improve gym accessibility, while fostering inclusive environments that support exercise for people with diverse abilities. Gyms implementing UD may reduce health inequities by accommodating diverse users.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".