Estudos sobre a estabilidade do desenho da figura humana (DHF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within a sample of 2,428 children from San Luis, Mendoza and San Juan, Argentina (1983), the standards of evaluation for 5 and 6-year-old children proposed by Koppitz (1968) and those developed in Ottawa by Groves and Fried (1991) are compared to Taborda-Barbenza’s ones (1993) with the aim at establishing HFD stability in different populations. This comparative study was also carried out in 127 4-year-old children from San Luis and Villa Mercedes, Argentina, taking into account the frequency of scores recorded in Ottawa and those registered in San Luis and Villa Mercedes. The different items were classified in terms of percentages: 100-86 %, expected; 85-51 %, common; 50-16 %, uncommon and 15-0 %, exceptional. Results show that modifications proposed in this work for the evaluation of HFD make the scale even more valid, even although the HFD is a competent instrument for having a stable measure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".