MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047548953 · doi:10.1037/a0019781

Seeing the forest for the trees: Prevalence of low scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, fourth edition (WISC-IV).

2010· article· en· W2047548953 on OpenAlexaff
Brian L. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleWechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligencePsychologyIntelligence quotientPercentile rankPercentileClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low scores across a battery of tests are common in healthy people and vary by demographic characteristics. The purpose of the present article was to present the base rates of low scores for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, fourth edition (WISC-IV; D. Wechsler, 2003). Participants included 2,200 children and adolescents between 6 and 16 years of age from the WISC-IV U.S. standardization sample. Measures considered in the base rates analyses included the 10 core subtests and the 4 index scores. Analyses were conducted for the entire standardization sample as well as stratified by different classifications of intelligence and different years of parental education. In the total sample, it is uncommon to have 6 or more subtest scores or 2 or more Index scores

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207