Parentsʼ Ratings of Everyday Cognitive Abilities in Very Low Birth Weight Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents' ratings of everyday cognitive functioning in very low birth weight (VLBW) children free of sensorineural impairments and normal birth weight (NBW) children were compared with the children's actual performance on psychometric measures of cognitive and motor skills. Subjects included 19 VLBW children identified at age 3 years as "suspect" for developmental problems, 19 VLBW children identified at age 3 years as "developing normally," and 30 NBW full-term peers. Results indicated that parents of the suspect VLBW group rated their children as having significant impairments in memory, language, cognitive, and motor skills, findings which were consistent with the results of concurrent psychometric assessments. When compared with psychometric test results, parents identified more children as displaying difficulties in memory, language, and cognitive skills, but fewer children with coordination difficulties. These findings suggest that the parents' ratings and the psychometric measures may be assessing somewhat different aspects of the children's functioning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".