MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972149806 · doi:10.1177/10983007060080030401

Contingency Mapping

2006· article· en· W1972149806 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 Positive Behavior Interventions · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingencyContingency managementPsychologyIntervention (counseling)AutismContingency tableDevelopmental psychologyMultiple baseline designApplied behavior analysisComputer sciencePsychiatryMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effectiveness of contingency mapping, a new visual support strategy designed to enhance clients' understanding of the contingencies associated with functional equivalence training (FET). The study was conducted in a general education classroom with an adolescent boy with autism who engaged in prompt dependent behavior. A multiple baseline ABCD design across three activities was used to evaluate intervention effectiveness and to compare a verbal contingency intervention with contingency mapping. Results indicated that the verbal contingency had no effect, whereas contingency mapping was related to immediate, dramatic, and sustained reductions in problem behavior and increases in alternative behavior. Social validation and follow-up data are also included. The potential of contingency mapping as an adjunct to FET is discussed. e-mail: kennethbrown@telus.net

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.150 · 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