Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated 21 contact-based education interventions in 5047 Canadian high school students and identified student characteristics associated with success. METHODS: We used a one-group pretest/posttest design with standardized instruments to measure changes in behavioural intent. Variability across interventions was assessed using meta-analysis, and a mixed-effects logistic regression was used to identify student characteristics. RESULTS: Interventions were heterogeneous (I(2) = 62.4%) but generally successful. The odds of getting an A grade was 2.57 times greater on the posttest than the pretest (95% CI = 2.18, 3.03). Males were less likely to achieve a passing score overall; however, males who self-disclosed a mental illness were more likely to pass. Three percent of students experienced a large drop in social acceptance following the intervention. These were more likely to be male [OR = 1.5 (95% CI = 1.0, 2.1)]. CONCLUSION: Contact-based education is a promising practice for reducing stigma in high school students, although the field would benefit from fidelity criteria to reduce variation across interventions. Males and females react differently to antistigma programming; particularly those with self-reported mental illnesses and a small proportion may become more intolerant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".