Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if age, gender, level of participation, onset of disability and sport classification have an impact on participation incentives (ego, fitness, social affective, social integration and task) in skiers with a disability. One hundred seventy-seven individuals between the ages of 4 and 66 years participated. The participants were described according to gender, time of onset of disability (congenital Vs acquired), level of sport involvement (recreation, local competition, provincial competition, national competition and international competition), and sport classification (LW1-LW9, LW10-LW12, blind, deaf and other [i.e. autistic, Down's Syndrome]). All the participants were active members of the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiing (CADS). The reasons for participation were evaluated using the Participation Reasons Scale (Brasile, 1988). MANOVA analysis indicated that significant relationships existed between age and individual items within the social affective and social integration incentive factors; gender and individual items within the ego incentive factor; level of participation and individual items within the ego, social affective, social integration and task incentive factors; onset of disability and individual items within the ego, social affective and social integration incentive factors; and sport classification and individual items within the social affective incentive factor. These results indicate that reasons for participation do differ among skiers with a disability and knowledge of these reasons may be important to be better able to design attractive and successful programs for the individual with a disability. These results are consistent with the Personal Investment Theory (Maehr and Braskamp, 1986) in that individuals will invest time and effort into physical activities that appeal to them and will be motivated by different aspects of the sport.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".