A cross‐sectional multivariate analysis of children's attitudes towards 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: Past research has shown that children can be biased against peers with disabilities, but the association of attitudes with gender, age and disability preferences, as well as interactions between these variables, are unclear. The objectives of this study were to examine these issues in a cross-sectional, split-plot study to clarify: (1) if elementary school children's attitudes towards peers with disabilities are related to age, gender and type of disability; (2) if interactions between these variables exist; and (3) if convergent validity could be achieved across three theoretically linked dependent variables. METHODS: One hundred elementary school children between 4 and 10 years old were assessed for attitudes towards target children with no disability, a physical or an intellectual disability, and a combined intellectual/physical disability. Measures were completed in an interview format. RESULTS: Attitudes towards a target child with physical disabilities and a target child without disabilities did not differ. There was a significant interaction for age and disability. Attitudes towards target children with intellectual and intellectual/physical disabilities were negatively biased, and were negatively associated with age. Results were consistent across measures except for a main effect of gender in one measure and a gender by age interaction in another. CONCLUSIONS: Children's attitudes appear to be associated with several factors, including age and the presence or absence of disability. Gender differences in attitudes may be because of gender-based response biases rather than disability biases. Because of the multifaceted nature of childhood attitudes, cross-sectional designs with several dependent and independent variables provide an opportunity to examine consistency of results across measures and potential interactions between factors that may not be uncovered when variables are examined in isolation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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