Inclusion as a Facilitator of Social and Physical Activity for People with Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the perceived relationship between inclusion and participation in social and physical activities for people with physical disabilities. In partnership with a local disability-focused non-profit organization, we completed semi-structured interviews with 12 individuals with physical disabilities. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic approach considering the social–ecological model and quality participation framework for people with disabilities. We developed three themes to describe the relationship between inclusion and participation in social and physical activities: physical accessibility of spaces and places, advocates are needed to share knowledge, and social inclusion and social/physical activities influence each other. Participants discussed the facilitating role of social inclusion on physical and social activities and the bi-directional relationship between inclusion and community participation. Fostering social inclusion through increased accessibility, education, and awareness at the community or program level can facilitate full community participation for people with physical disabilities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".