MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029422827 · doi:10.1177/10538151010240030101

General Growth Outcomes for Young Children: Developing a Foundation for Continuous Progress Measurement

2001· article· en· W2029422827 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff S. Priest, Scott R. McConnell, Dale Walker, Judith J. Carta, Ruth A. Kaminski, M. McEvoy, Roland H. Good, Charles R. Greenwood, Mark R. Shinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Intervention · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityPsychologyEarly childhood educationSet (abstract data type)Foundation (evidence)Developmental psychologyChild developmentDevelopmentally Appropriate PracticeEarly childhoodMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public expectations of accountability in our education system have increasingly focused on young children's development, in part because of Goal 1 of the National Education Goals (By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn). Few sensitive measurement systems have been developed, however, to monitor young children's growth over time. Building such a system requires a parsimonious but comprehensive set of developmental outcomes expected of children between birth and age 8. In the two studies presented here, investigators formulated a set of 15 general growth outcomes for young children, and conducted a survey of parents of children with and without disabilities and professionals in early childhood and early elementary education to validate the outcomes.

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)0.128
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1280.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early InterventionSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207