Running head: DEINSTITUTIONALIZA TION & COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES Community Recreation and Leisure Activities in Adults with Developmental Disabilities who have Recently Relocated to Community-based Residences in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, the Ontario Government closed the last three remaining large-scale institutions for people with Developmental Disabilities (DD). The purpose of this study is to examine the community-based recreation and leisure activities of 87 adults with DD who have recently moved into the community. Study 1 provided a descriptive insight into the community recreation and leisure activities, and revealed that people with DD engage in low levels of community activities, however are reported to have the desire to engage more often. Staff reported that people with DD do not have the opportunities to engage in their preferable activities. Study 2 investigated the prbspective predictors of the number and frequency of community, recreation and leisure activities and found that a higher level of functioning predicted a greater number of community activities (fJ =.26, P <.05), while both a higher level of functioning (fJ =.38,p <.001) and greater preference (fJ =.23. p <.05) predicted more frequent access to community activities. Future research and the implications of the findings for clinical practice and policy development were discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".