Goals and Performance of Children with Cerebral Palsy Participating in Therapeutic Horseback Riding (THR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploratory descriptive study was conducted to determine whether children with cerebral palsy who participate in therapeutic horseback riding (THR) programs set different riding goals for themselves than their parents set for them. The children's and their parents' perceptions of riding competence were also examined. The literature suggests that there may be a difference in goals identified by children and their parents but that there may not be a difference in their perceptions of riding competence. The leisure section of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used to identify horseback riding goals for both the children and parents. The children and parents rated perceived current levels of performance on the identified goals as well as their current level of satisfaction with performance. In addition, both dyads rated the importance of the THR activity. Sample size consisted of four children and four parents. The children specified different goals from their parents. The children identified goals that were associated with learning the skills of horseback riding while the majority of parents identified goals related to physical rehabilitation. Comparison of performance, satisfaction and importance scores was not possible as the children and parents did not identify similar goals. Further research in the area of parent and child goals may promote structuring of therapeutic horseback riding programs to better meet both child and parent needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".