Rules for the classification of younger children with Nonverbal Learning Disabilities and Basic Phonological Processing Disabilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rules for the classification of Nonverbal Learning Disabilities (NLD) and Basic Phonological Processing Disabilities (BPPD) that had been generated and tested on older children (ages 9-15) were applied to younger children (ages 7-8). The goal was to evaluate the applicability of these classification rules for a younger population with NLD and BPPD, and to make revisions if necessary. These rules were used to differentiate these two subtypes of learning disabilities using levels and patterns of performance on motor/psychomotor, tactile/perceptual, visual-spatial, auditory-perceptual, problem solving, and language measures. An experienced child-clinical neuropsychologist classified each child. Only those children who received a classification of NLD or BPPD by the neuropsychologist and those who met criteria for definite or probable NLD and BPPD as defined by the rules were used in this study. Revisions were made to these rules for younger children. Revised rules allow for their use as a source of information to assist a clinician in deciding whether a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation would be valuable. They may also be useful for research purposes.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it