Educators’ evaluations of children's ideas on the social exclusion of classmates with intellectual and learning disabilities
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: Reasons underlying the social exclusion of children with intellectual or learning disabilities are not entirely understood. Although it is important to heed the voices of children on this issue, it is also important to consider the degree to which these ideas are informed. The present authors invited educators to evaluate the content of children's ideas on the causes of social exclusion. METHOD: Educators thematically sorted and rated children's ideas on why classmates with intellectual or learning disabilities are socially excluded. Sorted data were analysed with multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. RESULTS: Six thematic clusters were identified differing in content to those provided by children in an earlier study. Educators generally rated children's ideas as showing somewhat uninformed ideas about why social exclusion occurs. CONCLUSIONS: Educators indicated that children need to be better informed about intellectual and learning disabilities. Limitations and implications are discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it