Physical Disability, Stigma, and Physical Activity in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".