Social and Emotional Functioning of Children with Learning Disabilities: Does Special Education Placement Make a Difference?
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
Children with learning disabilities in four types of special education settings were compared in terms of social acceptance, number of friends, quality of relationship with best friends, self‐concept, loneliness, depression, social skills, and problem behaviors. Two of the placements (In‐Class Support and Resource Room) were for children with mild to moderate learning disabilities and involved between 30 and 90 minutes of special education per school day. The other two placements (Inclusion Class and Self‐Contained Special Education Class) were designated for children with severe learning disabilities and involved at least a half‐day of special education. Children in the more inclusive placements had more positive social and emotional functioning. Children receiving In‐Class Support were more accepted by peers, had higher self‐perceptions of mathematics competence, and fewer problem behaviors than children receiving Resource Room Support. Children in Inclusion Classes had more satisfying relationships with their best school friends, were less lonely, and had fewer problem behaviors than children in Self‐Contained Special Education Classes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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