MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092442682 · doi:10.1177/0829573511419090

WISC-IV GAI and CPI in Psychoeducational Assessment

2011· article· en· W2092442682 on OpenAlex
Dawn Bremner, Breanne McTaggart, Donald H. Saklofske, Troy Janzen

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleCognitionWechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceIntelligence quotientVerbal reasoningComprehensionIndex (typography)Developmental psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The General Ability Index (GAI) and Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) are two index scores that can be calculated for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Canadian Edition ((WISC-IV CDN ). The GAI comprises the verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning subtests and reflects reasoning abilities. The CPI includes the working memory and processing-speed subtests that are more focused on the proficiency and efficiency of cognitive processing. This article presents GAI and CPI patterns observed in several small samples of referred children and includes three brief case examples of how the scores can provide another lens for analyzing children’s abilities with the WISC-IV CDN .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.289 · 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