Stability of Social Status of Children with and without Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stability of peer status of children with and without learning disabilities (LD) was examined. Thirty-eight 9- to 12-year-old children with LD were compared with a sample of children without LD matched on gender and general education classroom placement using a composite positive and negative nomination sociogram (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983) and a Social Behavior Nomination Scale adapted from Dodge (1983). The measures were administered twice in the same school year. Findings that students with LD had lower social preference scores and were more likely to be socially rejected were consistent with previous research. Children with LD were also less likely to be seen as cooperative and leaders than children without LD. Although the sociometric measures had good test-retest reliability, the Social Preference score of children with LD decreased and their Liked Least score increased from Time 1 to Time 2 compared to children without LD. Children with LD were also seen by their peers as being more dependent at Time 2 than Time 1. Children with LD who had average social status at Time 1 were more likely than children without LD to change their social status to Neglected or Rejected social status at Time 2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".