MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793814689 · doi:10.1080/1034912x.2018.1426098

The Educators’ Attitudes Toward Disability Scale (EADS): A Pilot Study

2018· article· en· W2793814689 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Freer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disability Development and Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsSt. Clair College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPsychologyScale (ratio)Confirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Affect (linguistics)PsychometricsStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the Educators’ Attitudes toward Disability Scale (EADS). This scale was developed from the Social Workers Attitudes toward Disability Scale (SWADS). A sample of 128 postsecondary educators from one college and one university in Ontario, Canada completed the EADS, the Attitudes toward Disabled Persons scale (ATDP), and a demographic questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to verify that the subscales from the original SWADS (i.e. affect, behaviour/practice, and cognition) were present in the EADS. Pearson’s correlation was also calculated between the scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons-Form B (ATDP-B) and the EADS as a measure of validity. Finally, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the purpose of internal reliability among the items in the EADS. Preliminary findings suggest that the EADS may be a valid and reliable instrument, but measures attitudes unidimensionally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Disability Development and EducationSame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207