Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While an extensive body of research has examined the outcomes of inclusion for pupils with special needs, in particular learning disabilities, its effects on the development of children with intellectual disabilities (ID) have been less explored. As inclusive practices tend to be more common for this group of children, it is important to acquire more knowledge on this issue. METHODS: A comparative study with an experimental group of 34 children with ID fully included in general education classrooms with support, and a control group of 34 comparable children in special schools has been conducted. The progress accomplished by these two groups in their academic achievement and adaptive behaviour has been compared over two school years. RESULTS: Included children made slightly more progress in literacy skills than children attending special schools. No differences were found between the progress of the two groups in mathematics and adaptive behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusive education is an appropriate educational option for primary pupils with ID who require extensive support in school.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it