Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the definitions of LD used in empirical research in four major Canadian journals during the time period 19892000, and notes changes or trends in LD definitions and theories. Next, current definitions (2000/2001) ofLD used by the 10 provincial ministries of education and recent proposed changes are analysed and compared with changes in definition currently espoused in the research. Little consensus of LD definition was found in the 36 research articles, rendering comparability of findings difficult. Eight articles provided a theoretical critique of learning disabilities, with seven of the studies criticizing the role of IQ in LD definitions. Among the provinces, a number of different operational definitions are currently in use, with 8 of 10 provinces using some form of a 'traditional' IQ/achievement discrepancy method. A shift in LD identification practice, reflecting the theoretical work of Canadian-based Kirby, Siegel, and Stanovich, is seen in the recent Review of Special Education in British Columbia in which significantly low word identification, reading comprehension, and pseudo-word decoding are deemed sufficient to identify students as reading disabled. Implications for professionals in the field 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.
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) | 0.007 | 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 it