Students’ Behavioural Intentions Towards Peers with Disability
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 The objectives of this study were: (i) to compare the behavioural intentions of high school students towards individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with physical disabilities and (ii) to explore reasons for these behavioural intentions. Materials and methods A sample of 319 Grade 9 and Grade 12 students in Ontario, Canada, completed a questionnaire regarding their behavioural intentions towards peers with intellectual or physical disabilities. They also responded to open-ended questions concerning their feelings about participating in a class task or social activity with these individuals. Results Behavioural intentions towards students with intellectual disabilities were significantly more negative than were those towards students with physical disabilities. This difference was also reflected in responses to the open-ended questions. Common reasons for discomfort were perceived dissimilarities in interests or abilities. Conclusions Future efforts should aim to help students with and without disabilities find commonalities and to encourage reciprocity in their interactions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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