MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1673127523 · doi:10.7202/1068937ar

Le dépistage des retards de développement chez les jeunes enfants d’une communauté des Premières Nations

2020· article· fr· W1673127523 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Carmen Dionne, Suzie McKinnon, Jane Squires

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bien qu’il importe d’utiliser des instruments d’évaluation adaptés aux caractéristiques et à la réalité des communautés autochtones, l’absence de normes psychométriques pour ces communautés est fréquemment déplorée. Le but est de documenter la pertinence et l’utilité de l’instrument de dépistage des retards de développement Age and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) utilisé par des enseignantes auprès d’enfants (n = 213) Mohawks du Québec âgés entre 29 et 60 mois. Au niveau de la consistance interne pour les quatre questionnaires étudiés, sept résultats révèlent des alphas de Cronbach inférieurs à 0,60 : « communication » (Q42), « motricité globale » (Q36 et Q42), « motricité fine » (Q42) et « aptitudes individuelles ou sociales » (Q36, Q42 et Q54) tandis que treize présentent des alphas de Cronbach variant entre 0,61 et 0,90. Globalement, le groupe de discussion réalisé auprès des enseignantes révèle leur appréciation de l’instrument et le fait que son utilisation apparaît approprié pour cette communauté.

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 score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples→Same topicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→French-language works237,207→