Exploring the Movement Behaviours of Students Experiencing Disabilities While Attending Post-Secondary Institutions Across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little data exists regarding the movement behaviours of post-secondary students experiencing disabilities. The purpose of this study was to explore associations between disability and movement behaviours (physical activity, sleep, sedentary behaviour, and screen time) among students attending post-secondary institutions across Canada to produce a comprehensive overview of the movement behaviours of post-secondary students experiencing disabilities. A secondary data analysis was conducted using data from the online Canadian Campus Wellbeing Survey Fall 2020 to Winter 2023 cycles (n = 69,239). Associations between disability experience (physical disability, blindness/visual impairment, Deafness/hard of hearing, neurological disability) and adherence to movement behaviour recommendations were determined using log-binomial regression, after controlling for several confounders (e.g., age, gender, domestic/international status, etc.). Participants experiencing disabilities were 17% (95% CI: 12-23%) less likely to meet all movement behaviour recommendations than participants not experiencing disabilities. Participants experiencing physical disabilities were 6% (95% CI: 4-9%) less likely to meet physical activity recommendations than persons not experiencing physical disabilities. Adherence to movement behaviour recommendations did not differ among participants experiencing Deafness/hard of hearing and participants not experiencing Deafness/hard of hearing (Prevalence Ratios of 0.94-1.06, p>.05). Participants experiencing blindness/visual impairments were 13% (95% CI: 2-22%) less likely to meet screen time recommendations than participants not experiencing blindness/visual impairments. Persons experiencing neurological disabilities were 18% (95% CI: 12-23%) less likely to meet all movement behaviour recommendations than persons not experiencing neurological disabilities. Significant relationships were not observed between the number of disabilities experienced and adherence to movement behaviour recommendations (Prevalence Ratios of 0.82-0.88, p>.05). Findings point to the need to develop meaningful resources and programs that promote movement behaviours among post-secondary students experiencing disabilities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".