MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036917170 · doi:10.1080/13803390500409591

WAIS-III index score profiles in the Canadian standardization sample

2006· article· en· W2036917170 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rael T. Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsRiverview Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleSample (material)Cluster (spacecraft)StandardizationIndex (typography)PsychologyPopulationStatisticsComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsPsychiatryCognitionPhysicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Representative index score profiles were examined in the Canadian standardization sample of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III). The identification of profile patterns was based on the methodology proposed by Lange, Iverson, Senior, and Chelune (2002) that aims to maximize the influence of profile shape and minimize the influence of profile magnitude on the cluster solution. A two-step cluster analysis procedure was used (i.e., hierarchical and k-means analyses). Cluster analysis of the four index scores (i.e., Verbal Comprehension [VCI], Perceptual Organization [POI], Working Memory [WMI], Processing Speed [PSI]) identified six profiles in this sample. Profiles were differentiated by pattern of performance and were primarily characterized as (a) high VCI/POI, low WMI/PSI, (b) low VCI/POI, high WMI/PSI, (c) high PSI, (d) low PSI, (e) high VCI/WMI, low POI/PSI, and (f) low VCI, high POI. These profiles are potentially useful for determining whether a patient's WAIS-III performance is unusual in a normal population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207