Therapeutic Riding and You : an evaluation of how a local therapeutic riding program affects the lives of riders / by Amy K.S. Wonnell.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine how the Thunder Bay Therapeutic Riding \nAssociation impacts the lives of the riders; to determine what aspects of the program are \nmost important to the riders; and to provide the participants a chance to give feedback \nabout the program. There were 129 questionnaires sent out to riders, parents/caregivers \nand volunteers who had participated in the therapeutic riding program the previous year. \nQuestionnaires were completed and returned by 12 riders, 15 parents/caregivers, and 22 \nvolunteers. The questionnaires were made up of close-ended and open-ended questions. \nA focus group was also conducted to supplement the findings of the questionnaires. \nThere was one rider, one parent, and one volunteer participant in the focus group. The \nstudy investigated four domains of life: physical well-being; social well-being; \ndevelopment and activity; and emotional well-being. The results indicated that the \ntherapeutic riding program has a positive effect on all of these four domains. The \ngreatest effects of the program appear to be in the areas of emotional and social well-being. \nThis was seen in that the program provides a positive and uplifting experience; \nprovides social benefits to riders; and supplies a sense of accomplishment, independence \nand empowerment. The two most important aspects of the program are the horses and \nthe volunteers. The program could be improved by having more consistency with the \nvolunteers and equipment; by having individual goals and a progression of skills for each \nrider; and by giving more instruction and information to the volunteers. Overall, the \nprogram is commended by many of the individuals involved and has been both enjoyable \nand beneficial. Limitations to the study include that it involved a small number of \nparticipants, that it involved a small number of rider participants, and that only people \ninvolved in the program during the previous riding season were invited to participate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".