MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

European Academy for Childhood Disability (EACD): Recommendations on the definition, diagnosis and intervention of developmental coordination disorder (long version)*

2011· article· en· W1879216107 on OpenAlexaff
Rainer Blank, Bouwien Smits‐Engelsman, Helene J. Polatajko, Peter H. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This clinical practice guideline on developmental coordination disorder (CPG-DCD) for German-speaking countries, particularly Germany and Switzerland, is strongly in accordance with the European recommendations of the European Academy of Childhood Disability (EACD) from May 2010 (Brussels) and an international consensus, the International Leeds Consensus (2006).

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations598
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207