Exercise as stigma management for individuals with onset-controllable and onset-uncontrollable spinal cord injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Studies have suggested that individuals with physical disabilities are often stigmatized and are perceived to possess less favorable physical and psychological characteristics than individuals without disability. PURPOSE: To investigate whether able-bodied adults' perceptions of people with different causes of spinal cord injury (SCI) are influenced by physical activity status information. METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS: Each participant (N = 198) read all five vignettes describing individuals with SCI who had varying levels of physical activity participation and cause of injury information (e.g., onset-uncontrollable [hit by impaired driver] and onset-controllable [caused by impaired driving]). After reading each vignette, participants completed a 12-item Warmth and Competence Questionnaire to evaluate each target. One-way repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to examine the within-subjects differences. RESULTS: Physically active individuals with onset-uncontrollable SCI were rated most favorably on warmth and competence. Physically active individuals with onset-controllable SCI also were rated more favorably on warmth and competence than physically inactive targets with onset-controllable SCI. CONCLUSION: A physically active lifestyle may be beneficial in managing the stigma experienced by individuals with both onset-controllable and onset-uncontrollable SCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".