Influence des comportements problématiques dans l’évaluation du comportement adaptatif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’accès aux services spécialisés repose sur un diagnostic de déficience intellectuelle. Le critère le plus difficile à appliquer concerne le comportement adaptatif. Les comportements problématiques y sont peu définis et, selon l’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), devraient être considérés distinctement. Comment deux construits reflétant l’adaptation pourraient ne pas être associés? Cette étude s’intéresse aux liens entre les comportements adaptatifs et problématiques. Au total, 211 mères et 164 pères d’enfants recevant des services d’un Centre de Réadaptation en Déficience Intellectuelle et Troubles Envahissants du Développement (CRDITED) ont répondu à un questionnaire tandis qu’un éducateur et un enseignant répertoriaient respectivement les comportements adaptatifs et problématiques des enfants. Des liens significatifs entre les comportements adaptatifs et problématiques sont observés. Il serait opportun que la planification des services tienne plus spécifiquement compte de ces derniers puisque les besoins de soutien de l’enfant et de sa famille y sont reliés.
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 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".