Student attitudes toward peers with disabilities in inclusive and special education schools
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
Abstract Attitudes of elementary and secondary students toward peers with disabilities are explored. Reference is made to friendship, abusive behaviour, advocacy, and acceptance of special education or inclusion, as supportive of education of students with disabilities. Thirty-one students from special education schools and 21 from inclusive schools were interviewed. Qualitative investigation of interview data was undertaken. Findings indicate development of friendships and lower degrees of abusive behaviour in inclusive schools. Though students in both systems advocated for peers with disabilities, advocacy was more routine in inclusive settings. Most believed the approach taken by their schools to be appropriate for education of peers with disabilities. Findings were related to structural aspects of the schools, to social learning and social referencing theory, and effects of special education and inclusive structures on school life. Notes *Critical Disability Studies, c/o S842f Ross, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. Email: gbunch@edu.yorku.ca
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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