MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061690620 · doi:10.1080/1034912x.2010.524417

Physical Disability, Stigma, and Physical Activity in Children

2010· article· en· W2061690620 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disability Development and Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)PsychologyPhysical activityDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the stereotype content model as a guiding framework, this study explored whether the stigma that able‐bodied adults have towards children with a physical disability is reduced when the child is portrayed as being active. In a 2 (physical activity status) x 2 (ability status) study design, 178 university students rated a child described in one of four vignettes on 12 dimensions of perceived warmth and competence. Results revealed a main effect of ability status on warmth (p < 0.001) such that children with a physical disability were rated significantly higher in perceived warmth than able‐bodied children, regardless of activity status (d = 0.86). Also, there was a significant interaction (p = 0.02) of ability and activity status on perceived competence, indicating that ratings of perceived competence were significantly higher for active children with a physical disability than for all other children (d = 0.54–0.64). Results suggest that physical activity should be explored as a way to mitigate the stigmatisation of children with a physical disability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it