Emirati Student Attitudes Toward People with Intellectual 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
Exploring attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities may provide understanding on the acceptance of people with intellectual disabilities. While these attitudes have been explored globally, the United Arab Emirates is one context in which the attitudinal literature is limited. This study explored Emirati student attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities with the Community Living Attitudes Scale – Intellectual Disability (CLAS-ID). Principle Components Analysis indicated that the CLAS-ID’s four factor structure did not fit our sample. Instead, a three-factor model fit best, which includes Empowerment, Inclusion and Assistance. Having an extended family member with a disability predicted endorsement for Empowerment and Inclusion and less endorsement for Assistance. Higher economic status also predicted more endorsement of Empowerment and Inclusion; females had higher endorsement of Inclusion attitudes. Some of our findings reflect those found in other countries but further research is needed to better understand attitudes important to the Emirati cultural milieu.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it