An Investigation of the General Abilities Index in a Group of Diagnostically Mixed Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The General Ability Index (GAI) was compared with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS-III) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) from the WAIS-III in data obtained from 381 adults assessed for reported learning or attention problems between 1998 and 2005. Not only did clients with more neurocognitively based disorders (i.e., learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and brain injury) demonstrate a larger discrepancy between GAI and FSIQ than did those with mainly psychological conditions (i.e., depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder), but specific neurocognitive diagnosis also moderated the relationship between these two indices. In neurocognitive disorders, GAI was found to be generally higher than FSIQ, a finding that distinguished this group from a nonclinical sample. There were significant differences in GAI among the clinical groups, and FSIQ was closely related to GAI. Implications for use of the GAI in clinical practice are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".