The performance profile on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test of a group of children with cerebral palsy aged between 9 and 12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the performance profile of a group of children with cerebral palsy (CP) on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST).Methods: The sample consisted of 102 children aged between 9–12, divided into two groups: the clinical group consisted of 52 children with CP in mainstream class (37 with hemiplegia and 15 with diplegia), while the comparison group comprised 50 children matched for class, gender, age and socioeconomic status.Results: The findings showed that children with CP make more non-perseverative errors, they completed fewer categories, required more trials to complete the first category and gave fewer conceptual responses than control children. Children with diplegia are distinguished more from comparison children than children with hemiplegia.Conclusion: The results suggest a difficulty in initial conceptualization that could be attributable to a slow rate of information processing. Delayed maturation of the nervous system is likely to be implied.Propésito: La puntería de este estudio era determinar el perfil del funcionamiento de niños con la parálisis cerebral (CP) en Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Métodos: La muestra consistió en 102 niños (9-12 años), dividido en dos grupos: el grupo clínico consistió en 52 niños con el CP incluidos en clase regular (37 con hemiplegia y 15 con diplegia) y el grupo de la comparación consistió en 50 niños emparejados para la clase, el género, la edad y el estado socioeconómico. Resultados: Los resultados demostraron que los niños con el CP hacen no-más errores con perseverancia, terminaron pocas categorías, requirieron más ensayos para terminar la primera categoría y dieron pocas respuestas conceptuales que niños del control. Los niños con diplegia se distinguen más del niños del grupo de comparación que los niños con hemiplegia. Conclusión: Los resultados sugieren una dificultad en la conceptualización inicial que podría ser atribuible a un índice lento de tratamiento de la información. Un plazo de la maduración del sistema nervioso central es problablement implicado Palabras clave : Parálisis cerebral, función ejecutiva, ajuste social
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".