Inclusive play space design for users with neuro-physical disabilities: adult, youth, and child perspectives in Ireland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perspectives of users on inclusive play space design are significantly absent in play and disability scholarship. This study is part of a participation project with 21 children, youth, and adults with disabilities, and parents/carers of children/youth with disabilities, in Cork, Ireland, to explore their perspectives on desirable play and inform design of an inclusive play space. Our approach was informed through tenets of human rights disability theory and we conducted a thematic analysis of focus group content. Findings illustrate that inclusive play spaces afford users with (1) physical movement and thrill; (2) sensory experiences and natural elements; (3) time for relaxing and gathering; and (4) tools for sport and fitness. There is a need to consider human rights co-design approaches and to continue to advocate for the voices of users with neuro-physical disabilities in play space design.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it