MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071432691

Social distance students' attitudes towards disabled peers

2014· article· en· W7071432691 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal communicationSocial distanceInterpersonal relationshipComponent (thermodynamics)CognitionSocial groupPeer groupSocial relation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the development of the society and social care, scientific and technical progress, the attitude towards the people with disabilities has changed. According to the Quebec classification of disability it represents a process created together with risk factors, children's personality, life habits and environmental factors that match child's age, gender and socio-cultural identity. The attitude represents a tendency to react positively or negatively towards certain objects, features or situations. Attitude, as a model of behavior not firmly and definitely determined, can be formed, but also changed, mainly based on experience and interpersonal relationship as well as ones knowledge and feelings. Aim: The main goal of this research is to determine the adolescents' attitude towards peers with disabilities. Method: The research was conducted on 132 high school students, out of which there were 64 students in one group and a peer with a form of disability among them. The other group had 68 students, where none of them had a disability. For the needs of this research, a questionnaire has been created in order to determine the attitudes of students towards disabilities. The questionnaire consists of 20 questions where the participant can circle only one of the following options: yes, no or I do not know. The questions can be divided into 3 components - the first one regarding the cognitive component of the attitude, the second one regarding the emotional component and the third one regarding the behavioral component. Results: Belonging to a certain group determines formatting and expressing one's opinion. Both groups of participants gave the same answers in terms that both groups believed that they were insufficiently informed about the people with disabilities. Those questions tackled the knowledge of different types of disabilities, source of information, and care for the disabled. Further results indicate that contact with the people with disabilities determines the development of a positive attitude towards them. The biggest social distance has been expressed during the analysis of emotional components of attitude, included in the questions regarding interpersonal relationship. It seems that spending time and having experience with the disabled does not significantly affect the preparation of adolescents in creating close emotional contact. Conclusion: We emphasize that there is still heavy prejudice which makes the full integration and socialization of the people with disabilities harder. It is commonly accepted that all people learn and that their full inclusion represents the ultimate goal. However, this requires a change in the attitude of the wider social community. The final goal is determined not just by one's capabilities but also by the possibility for all other relevant factors to conform to the needs of an individual. So, going from the main idea of inclusion, that all individuals are different, the society should change and adjust so that they could meet the needs of all individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.637
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207