MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107055059 · doi:10.1177/1362361301005001003

Social and Language Skills in Adolescent Boys with Asperger Syndrome

2001· article· en· W2107055059 on OpenAlexafffund
Cyndie Koning, Joyce Magill‐Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
KeywordsPsychologySocial skillsDevelopmental psychologyAutismAsperger syndromeSocial competenceSocial relationPerceptionCASPSocial cognitionSocial perceptionHigh-functioning autismInterpersonal relationshipClinical psychologyAutism spectrum disorderCognitionSocial changeSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-one adolescent boys with Asperger syndrome and 21 boys matched on age and an estimate of IQ were assessed using standardized measures of social perception (Child and Adolescent Social Perception Measure, CASP), social skills (parent, teacher, and student forms of the Social Skills Rating System, SSRS), number of close friends and frequency of contact (Child Behavior Checklist) and expressive and receptive language (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised). There were significant differences between groups on CASP scores, SSRS scores, number of friends, frequency of contact and social competence. There was also a significant difference on receptive language. The clinically and statistically significant differences between the groups on the measures of social skills help us understand the nature of the social deficits in Asperger syndrome and suggest the need to focus on specific deficits. These findings are discussed in relation to diagnostic criteria and intervention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations271
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutismSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207