Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is the most commonly used confrontation‐naming test in Anglophone countries. In a study of young New Zealand adults (Barker‐Collo, 2001 Barker‐Collo, S. L. 2001. The 60‐item Boston Naming Test: Cultural bias and possible adaptations for New Zealand.. Aphasiology, 15(1): 85–92. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) the average participant performed well below the mean of the most closely matched North American normative sample, and potentially culturally biased items were identified. Aims: The first aim of this study was to examine overall BNT performance in a sample of healthy older New Zealand adults when compared to available normative data. The second aim was to determine potential for cultural bias of individual items: the extent and pattern of errors produced by this sample is compared to that of previously published data from younger New Zealand adults, and from other countries (e.g., Australia). Methods & Procedures: The 60‐item BNT was administered to 20 healthy older New Zealand born adults (mean = 63.4; range = 55–76 years). Total scores of the sample are compared to published age‐referenced normative data, while the pattern of errors obtained is compared to a published data for New Zealand young adults and Australian and Canadian samples. Outcomes & Results: The results indicate that performance of the present sample fell within or above one standard deviation from the normative mean. The sample produced most of its errors on three BNT items (pretzel, beaver, and protractor). Only 65% and 70% of the present sample made correct responses on the first two items, compared to 27.6% and 31% of young New Zealanders. That both samples performed worst on these two items suggests they may be culturally biased. Conclusions: It is suggested that the better overall performance of the present sample may have been due to sample characteristics (e.g., high level of education). Items likely to reflect cultural bias (i.e., beaver, pretzel) are identified. Items previously found to impact performance of young New Zealanders that did not negatively impact the present sample (e.g., globe), may reflect cohort effects, or the highly educated nature of the sample.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".