Strengths-Based Media Coverage of Disability: Can Viewing the Paralympic Games Change Attitudes Toward Disability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengths-based media coverage of people with disability challenges deficits-based perceptions of impairment that are elicited through a traditional, medical model. As an evaluation of strengths-based media coverage, we examined the impact of viewing Paralympic media coverage on explicit attitudes toward people with disability. University students (N = 135, Mage = 20.2 years) were assigned to a 12-day experimental condition of viewing either (a) Paralympic events (n = 47), (b) Olympic events (n = 48), or (c) no media coverage (n = 40). Attitudes toward disability were assessed pre- and postintervention using the Attitudes to Disability Scale. Repeated-measures profile analysis with a doubly multivariate design did not reveal improved attitudes toward disability after viewing Paralympic media coverage. Supporting previous work that questioned the ability of the Paralympic Games to alter perceptions of disability, these results suggest that the International Paralympic Committee is not achieving their intended legacy of inclusion.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".