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 OpenAlex
John Freer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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