Original Research Attitudes of Senior Psychiatry Residents Toward Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined the attitudes of senior residents in psychiatry toward persons with intellectual disabilities. Examining residents ’ attitudes will highlight areas of training that could be enhanced to better prepare psychiatrists to work with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Method: A questionnaire was distributed to senior psychiatry residents at a Canada-wide prepara-tory session for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Included in the question-naire was the Community Living Attitudes Scale Mental Retardation- Short Form (CLAS) as well as demographic items (for example, age, sex, and marital status) and questions about training in in-tellectual disabilities. Scores on the 4 CLAS subscales (Empowerment, Similarity, Exclusion, and Sheltering) are reported, and analyses of variance were performed to identify factors associated with each subscale score. The residents ’ scores are compared with those obtained in surveys of other groups. Results: Fifty-eight senior residents from across Canada completed the questionnaire. The resi-dents ’ scores favorued Empowerment and Similarity over Exclusion and Sheltering. Men and women responded differently. Training in intellectual disabilities during residency only appeared to influence the Similarity subscale scores. Conclusion: Senior psychiatry residents hold attitudes toward persons with intellectual disabilities that are not entirely consistent with the community living philosophic paradigm. More research is needed to uncover how attitudes of psychiatrists develop, as well as how training can influence attitudes. (Can J Psychiatry 2003;48:538–545) Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".