Looking back to move forward: a retrospective look at lived experience to inform future physical literacy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical inactivity among adolescents and young adults experiencing intellectual disabilities (ID) has been a long-standing issue. Physical literacy (PL) is one framework community leaders, researchers, and practitioners have pursued to improve physical activity (PA) participation and engagement for all. Diverse perspectives are needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of best practices in PL, including the views of individuals who experience disabilities. This research explores the subjective perception of the PL journeys of individuals who experience ID. The primary research question is, “How does the transition from adolescence to adulthood impact the PL journey of individuals experiencing ID?” This question was addressed via semistructured interviews with five young adults aged 20-26 diagnosed with ID. Components of this study were supported by the COM-B model of behaviour change as the theoretical framework and interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) as the methodology. Subsequent analysis of interview transcripts revealed that individuals who experience ID understand their PL journey in the transition to adulthood to be the product of a) the past dictates the present and future, b) a team-based approach and c) exploring opportunities everywhere. Results indicate that individuals experience a range of barriers to participation and that transitioning to adulthood is a vulnerable time in one’s PL journey that requires additional support. However, participants illustrate a sense of resilience and responsibility in pursuing PL that has facilitated their growth until now and into adulthood.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".