MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013037344 · doi:10.1002/jclp.1120

Base rates of WAIS‐R VIQ–PIQ differences in 1593 psychiatric inpatients

2001· article· en· W2013037344 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Todd S. Woodward, Paul Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWechsler Adult Intelligence ScalePsychologyPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Clinical psychologyDepression (economics)Intelligence quotientCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to provide the psychologist with base-rate tables for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Verbal IQ-Performance IQ difference scores in 1593 psychiatric inpatients. Subtables also were provided for each of three primary psychiatric diagnoses (schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorders, and depression). The base rates of VIQ-PIQ splits in the full inpatient sample, and those for the subsamples based on primary psychiatric diagnosis, were very similar to those reported in the WAIS-R standardization sample. Consistent with past research on the standardization sample, the VIQ-PIQ split was correlated positively with Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), indicating that larger splits are more common at the higher IQ levels. Therefore, base-rate tables also were provided for the total inpatient sample split into five IQ groupings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207