Public Attitudes Towards Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the Concept of Social Distance
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
Background While current practices strive to include individuals with intellectual disabilities in community opportunities, stigmatizing attitudes held by the public can be a barrier to achieving true social inclusion. Methods A sample of 625 community members completed the Social Distance Subscale of the Multidimensional Attitude Scale on Mental Retardation. Results Older and less educated participants held attitudes that reflected greater social distance. Participants who had a close family member with an intellectual disability and those who perceived the average level of disability to be ‘mild’ expressed less social distance. The limited variability in scores leads us to question our overall finding of very favourable attitudes towards social interaction with persons with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions This study demonstrates that although certain demographic variables are still relevant in identifying social distance attitudes, the measurement of this construct requires revision to ensure a valid and sensitive reflection of the public’s attitudes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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