Meaning of Staring and the Starer–Staree Relationship Related to Men Living With Acquired Spinal Cord Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When in public places, many individuals with physical disabilities experience staring. Although staring is typically seen as uncomplicated and something to be "ignored," it has consequences for the person being stared and the staree. Few studies have focused on staring experienced by men following spinal cord injury (SCI). Accordingly, this study explored how adult men with SCI give meaning to the staring from others, the consequences for them, and their responses to the staring and to the starer. Principles of modified grounded theory methods were used to conduct a secondary analysis of interview data for 30 male participants from a larger study of community-dwelling individuals with SCI. Themes revealed through analysis related to context-dependent meanings of staring, negative consequences of staring for some men, and positive opportunities for self-growth and interaction with the public. These findings contribute to a more complex understanding of staring and the relationship between the starer and staree in various social circumstances which can support people living with differences in their public interactions, and improve their quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".