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
Abstract Beliefs about learning and physical difficulties were explored in 50 younger children (M = 5.6, SD = 1.0 years) and 50 older children (M = 9.5, SD = 1.1 years). Participants were asked why they thought some children had learning or physical difficulties and whether children with these difficulties would always have them. The majority of older children were able to generate one or more ideas about the causes of learning and physical difficulties, but 58% of the younger children did not know the causes of learning difficulties and 42% did not know the causes of physical difficulties. Younger and older children thought that learning difficulties could be overcome with increased effort on the part of parents, teachers, and child, whereas physical difficulties were believed to be beyond anyone's control. Results suggest that some aspects of children's knowledge about causes and outcomes of learning and physical difficulties are limited. Research is needed to determine whether beliefs and misconceptions about learning and physical difficulties are associated with the quantity and quality of interpersonal interactions, and to determine the sources of children's information as well as the accuracy of these sources. Keywords: BeliefsChildhoodIntellectual disabilityPerceptionsPhysical disability Acknowledgements The findings reported here are based on research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. No restrictions have been imposed on free access to, or publication of, the research data. Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency. The authors had no financial or other conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it