MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073086551 · doi:10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.867

Response to Visual Stimuli by Adults with Developmental Disabilities

2003· article· en· W2073086551 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyVisual perceptionNeuroscienceAudiologyPerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young college students with (n=20) and without (n=20) developmental disabilities performed a hand-eye coordination task that involved contacting illuminated target buttons on a wall-mounted board while simultaneously reading numbers in central vision. The target buttons were arranged in 5 concentric rings allowing for the computation of successful contact rates between different areas of the movement environment. Analysis showed, although students with developmental disabilities had lower overall contact rates than peers without such disabilities, both groups performed with comparable accuracy in all locations within the movement environment. This finding suggests that special adaptations of visual information in the working environment for a person with developmental disabilities may not be necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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