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

WISC-IV GAI and CPI in Psychoeducational Assessment

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

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207