MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Development of Attention in Persons with Intellectual Disability: Challenging the Myths

2012· book-chapter· en· W209232804 on OpenAlex
Grace Iarocci, Mafalda Porporino, James T. Enns, Jacob A. Burack

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

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicWilliams Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntellectual disabilityDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter focuses on the attentional abilities of the persons with specific etiologies. It begins with an extensive review of the literature on attention in persons with the most common organic forms of intellectual disability. It then summarizes the results of a survey of studies on attention in Down syndrome, fragile X, and Williams syndrome, and discusses the implications of these findings for future research in the area. The chapter proposes to apply a framework for understanding developmental change and stability in selective attention, a framework that initially emerged in the course of understanding the role of attention in automobile driving and was later applied to the development of attention over the typical human lifespan.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.083 · 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