The sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and strategies to support their quality participation: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programmers, coaches, and other supporters play integral roles in fostering the quality participation (QP) of blind and partially sighted people in sport. However, there is a dearth of information available to sport organizations regarding the provision of quality programming for blind and partially sighted people. Informed by the Quality Parasport Participation Framework, we conducted a scoping review to explore the current body of literature related to the sport participation of blind and partially sighted people and the support strategies associated with quality experiences. After searching four databases, two independent reviewers screened a total of 1245 studies against our inclusion criteria (e.g., peer-reviewed, English) and identified 29 articles that met our criteria. Engaging with the collected literature, we synthesized findings related to general study characteristics and the quality sport experiences of blind and partially sighted people. Conducting primarily inductive analysis, we then generated three principles related to the provision of quality sport programming for blind and partially sighted people, operationalized in 33 distinct strategies, through which coaches can foster the six experiential elements of QP. Additionally, we constructed 16 acute and long-term outcomes resulting from the experience of QP in sport for blind and partially sighted athletes. This project contributes to the existing literature regarding the sport experiences of blind and partially sighted athletes and the strategies that foster QP for diverse athletes. These findings will be disseminated to various sports organizations to support the development and provision of quality sport programming for blind or partially sighted people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".