MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967823181 · doi:10.1177/0734282913516718

Evaluating the Adequacy of Social-Emotional Measures in Early Childhood

2014· article· en· W1967823181 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsPolicyWise for Children & FamiliesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPsychologyApplied psychologyAccountabilityReliability (semiconductor)Quality (philosophy)Intervention (counseling)Identification (biology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technical adequacy and usability are important considerations in selecting early childhood social-emotional (SE) screening and assessment measures. As identification of difficulties can be tied to programming, intervention, accountability, and funding, it is imperative that practitioners and decision makers select appropriate and quality measures from the plethora of measures available. This study systematically reviewed and evaluated the technical adequacy and usability of 10 commonly used SE assessment and screening measures, using a framework for evaluating selected properties of measures (e.g., reliability, validity). Through this review, it was found that there are inadequacies in many commonly used SE measures, deserving the attention of both users and developers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.361 · 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