MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072799406 · doi:10.1111/cdev.12124

Swiss Children's Moral and Psychological Judgments About Inclusion and Exclusion of Children With Disabilities

2013· article· en· W2072799406 on OpenAlex
Luciano Gasser, Tina Malti, Alois Buholzer

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

VenueChild Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Developmental psychologyInclusion–exclusion principleSocial exclusionContext (archaeology)Learning disabilitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children's judgments about inclusion and exclusion of children with disabilities were investigated in a Swiss sample of 6-, 9-, and 12-year-old children from inclusive and noninclusive classrooms (N = 422). Overall, the majority of children judged it as morally wrong to exclude children with disabilities. Yet, participants were less likely to expect the inclusion of children with mental or physical disabilities in academic and athletic contexts compared to social contexts. Moreover, older children more consistently coordinated disability type with context of exclusion. There were also significant differences depending on the type of classroom. The findings extend existing research on exclusion by investigating exclusion based on disability across different age groups and educational settings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.282 · 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