MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031596212 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-118.3.193

Cognitive Flexibility Among Individuals With Down Syndrome: Assessing the Influence of Verbal and Nonverbal Abilities

2013· article· en· W2031596212 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Campbell, Oriane Landry, Natalie Russo, Heidi Flores, Sophie Jacques, Jacob A. Burack

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive flexibilityFlexibility (engineering)FistCognitionPsychologyNonverbal communicationMental ageDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive developmentMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influences of verbal mental age (VMA) and performance mental age (PMA) on cognitive flexibility were examined among a group of participants with Down syndrome (DS), in order to disentangle the relative contributions of each. The impaired cognitive flexibility typically observed among individuals with DS in combination with uneven VMA and PMA development suggests an opportunity to further understand the developmental relationship between VMA, PMA, and cognitive flexibility. We examined the performance of 22 participants with DS on the Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST), used for measuring cognitive flexibility among preschoolers. Partial correlations revealed that only VMA was related to the FIST after controlling for PMA, highlighting the role of verbal abilities in the development of cognitive flexibility.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207