Étude descriptive de l’évaluation de comorbidité psychiatrique en déficience intellectuelle adulte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article exploratoire discute de l’apport de l’examen cognitif dans l’évaluation de comorbidité psychiatrique en déficience intellectuelle (DI), comme le trouble déficit de l’attention/hyperactivité (TDA/H). Treize adultes (deux avec DI et TDA/H en comorbidité et onze avec DI sans TDA/H) de l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Québec sont évalués sur dix domaines cognitifs. Les résultats sont en partie déficitaires, avec une variabilité intra-sujet. Malgré la petite taille de l’échantillon, les difficultés cognitives des participants adultes avec DI et TDA/H ne semblent pas plus importantes que celles de participants sans TDA/H. En conclusion, l’évaluation cognitive d’adultes DI apparaît pertinente qualitativement, mais discutable quantitativement. Les limites de cette étude exploratoire et les directions futures sont également discutées.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".