B. Davis- Jewish General Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universite de Montreal ABSTRACT. Tested the hypothesis that common reactions to people with disabilities are partly due to the attentional consequences of novelty and explored the impact of personality on nondisabled individuals ' reactions, three hundred and fifty one college students completed personality measures (social anxiety, shyness, public self- consciousness, self-monitoring) and indicated their feelings, self and other-focused thoughts, and behavioral intentions con-cerning a hypothetical encounter with an "average " student or with 2 types of novel peers: student with a disability and an all-round outstanding individual. Implications of the findings, which indicate that (1) novelty provides a partial explanation of interaction problems between nondisabled and disabled peers and (2) personality factors have a different impact on thoughts and feelings about encounters with peers who are novel than on those who are not, are discussed. The literature indicates that in casual social encounters between people who do not know each other well, nondisabled individuals (1) behave differently with people who have a disability, (2) are less comfortable with disabled than with nondisabled peers, (3) have more negative thoughts when it comes to interacting with people who have physical impairments, and (4) commonly make both overly positive and negative evaluations (Berry & Meyer, 1995;
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.431 | 0.091 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".