Individual and Social Model of Intellectual Disability in Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Author’s research discussed in the following article was aimed at determining which model of intellectual disability is preferred by teachers and students, and what the differences are between these respondents in this respect. The assumptions characteristic for the individual model focused on the person with disability, and in particular, on his or her biological (physical) defects. The defects that caused limitations in functioning were treated as the basis of disability. Professional activities (mostly medical) focused on adjusting to the state of limited functioning, seen in a reductionist way: as accepting the loss of ability or independence. The social model situated the origin of disability in society. In this perspective, it defined disability as the product of specific social and economic structures, and its main interest focused on the problems of oppression and discrimination of persons with disability. Research was carried out with special needs teachers who work with individuals with intellectual disability, teachers working with able-bodied individuals, and students of special pedagogy. The Likert type scale, called “The model of an intellectual disability”, was used to determine the model of intellectual disability. The research had a cognitive goal but also a significant practical goal related to the specialists’ professional training. The article offers general recommendations for shaping attitudes and assessments connected with noticing possibilities in the lives of individuals with intellectual disability, taking into account the influence of environmental factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".