MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070662361 · doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00053

Children with Learning Disabilities within the Family Context: A Comparison with Siblings in Global Self–Concept, Academic Self–Perception, and Social Competence

2003· article· en· W2070662361 on OpenAlexafffund
Lily Dyson

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Disabilities Research and Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyLearning disabilityPerceptionPsychosocialSocial competenceCompetence (human resources)Social environmentSelf-conceptSocial changeSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the global self–concept, academic self–perception, social competence, and behavioral problems of 19 children with learning disabilities within the family context. Comparisons were made between the target children and their close–age siblings and family psychological correlates were identified. The participants were administered child assessment scales and rated by their parents, who also completed family psychosocial measures. The results show that although children with learning disabilities do not differ from their siblings in global self–concept and academic self–perception, their parents rated them to have less social competence and more behavior problems than their siblings. Moreover, the social competence and behavioral problems of children with learning disabilities are related to their parents’ stress. Educational and research implications are drawn.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations88
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning Disabilities Research and PracticeSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207