Understanding attitudes toward people with Down syndrome
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
Understanding attitudes of the public toward people with Down syndrome is important because negative attitudes might create barriers to social integration, which can affect their success and quality of life. We used data from two 2008 U.S. surveys (HealthStyles(c) survey of adults 18 years or older and YouthStyles(c) survey of youth ages 9-18) that asked about attitudes toward people with Down syndrome, including attitudes toward educational and occupational inclusion and toward willingness to interact with people with Down syndrome. Results showed that many adults continue to hold negative attitudes toward people with Down syndrome: A quarter of respondents agreed that students with Down syndrome should go to special schools, nearly 30% agreed that including students with Down syndrome in typical educational settings is distracting, and 18% agreed that persons with Down syndrome in the workplace increase the chance for accidents. Negative attitudes were also held by many youth: 30% agreed that students with Down syndrome should go to separate schools, 27% were not willing to work with a student with Down syndrome on a class project, and nearly 40% indicated they would not be willing to spend time with a student with Down syndrome outside of school. Among both adult and youth, female sex and respondents with previous relationships with people with Down syndrome were consistently associated with more positive attitudes. These results may be helpful in the development of educational materials about Down syndrome and in guiding policies on educational and occupational inclusion.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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