Beliefs Toward Social and Cognitive Competences in People with Down Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of a person with intellectual disability, such as Down Syndrome (DS), depends not only on the skills of the person himself, but also on the attitude that other persons have to him. Most of the studies that focused on the attitude towards people with DS did not thoroughly investigate the beliefs on the competences of people with DS. Our aim is to identify the commonly held beliefs towards the social and cognitive competences of people with DS. Specifically, we want to verify if there are any differences among the beliefs held by parents of Typical Development (TD) children, parents of people with DS and people without children. A second aim is to evaluate a possible association between the level of knowledge about the Syndrome and related positive beliefs. 363 subjects from 18 to 70 years old (M = 37.56; S.D. = 14.73) were recruited. The sample was divided in three different groups: 1) subjects with TD children; 2) subjects with DS children and 3) subjects without children. An ad hoc self-report questionnaire was administered. Results show that people with Down Syndrome are considered more competent in terms of motor skills, but less competent in social skills. The level of knowledge of the Syndrome correlates positively with beliefs in all competences. There are differences in beliefs between the three groups: parents with DS children have more positive beliefs about all skills, especially as regards the socialization. Knowing the beliefs on the skills of DS people can be very useful, in order to improve inclusiveness of those with DS.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".