Leisure participation-preference congruence of children with cerebral palsy in Canada and Australia: A CAPE International Network descriptive study [accepted manuscript]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knowledge of whether children with cerebral palsy (CP) are doing preferred leisure activities has important implications for families and rehabilitation professionals. We examined (a) participation-preference congruence; (b) regional differences in participation-preference congruence; and (c) predictors of whether children were participating in preferred activities.\nMethods: The sample (n=236) included 148 boys and 88 girls, 10 to 13 years, living in Victoria (n=110), Ontario (n=80) or Quebec (n=46); GMFCS Level 1: 99(41.9%); Level II/III: 89(37.7%); Level IV/V: 48(20.3%). Participants completed the Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment and Preferences for Activity of Children. Regional comparisons were performed using one way ANOVAs and exploration of factors influencing participation-preference congruence using multiple linear regression.\nResults: Proportion of children Doing Non-Preferred activities in each Activity Type was generally low (2-17%); with only one regional difference. Higher proportions were Not Doing Preferred Active Physical (range: 23.2%-29.1% across regions), Skill-based (range: 21.7%-27.9% across regions) and Social activities (range: 12.8%-14.5% across regions). GMFCS level was the most important predictor associated with Not Doing Preferred activities.\nInterpretation: Children with CP did not always participate in preferred Active Physical and Skill-based activities. Understanding discrepancies between preferences and actual involvement may allow families and rehabilitation professionals to address participation barriers.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".