MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105087994 · doi:10.1037/a0033356

Attitude et distance sociale des élèves non handicapés à l’égard de leurs pairs handicapés.

2014· article· fr· W2105087994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kahina Harma, Anne Gombert, Jean-Yves Roussey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche visait un double objectif. Il s’agissait, d’une part, de s’interesser a la dimension comportementale de l’attitude des eleves non handicapes scolarises dans un cadre inclusif a l’egard de leurs camarades handicapes et de reperer la distance sociale qu’ils maintiennent avec eux et, d’autre part, d’etudier l’effet des facteurs contact, visibilite et importunite du handicap sur l’evolution de cette attitude et de cette distance sociale. Cinq cent quarante-neuf eleves de cinq colleges scolarisant des eleves presentant des handicaps correspondant a l’interaction des facteurs visibilite et importunite (trisomie 21, deficience intellectuelle, infirmite motrice et cerebrale et trouble des apprentissages) ont rempli un questionnaire en debut et en fin d’annee. Les resultats montrent que les eleves ont des attitudes favorables a l’egard de leurs pairs handicapes, mais qu’ils maintiennent cependant une distance sociale avec eux. Ils indiquent egalement que les attitudes et la distance sociale evoluent en cours d’annee en fonction de l’interaction des facteurs etudies. La scolarisation en milieu ordinaire d’eleves presentant un handicap visible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207