MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115317207 · doi:10.1177/0022219410371680

Social Cognition and Its Relation to Psychosocial Adjustment in Children With Nonverbal Learning Disabilities

2010· article· en· W2115317207 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya M. Galway, Jamie L. Metsala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNonverbal communicationLearning disabilityPsychosocialCognitionDevelopmental psychologyRelation (database)Cognitive psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined social cognitive skills in children with nonverbal learning disabilities (NLD) compared to normally achieving (NA) children. The relation between social cognitive skills and psychosocial adjustment was also investigated. There were no group differences on children's ability to represent orally presented social vignettes. Children with NLD were less able to recognize self-generated competent/assertive responses as the best solutions to a problem, expected fewer positive and more negative outcomes for examiner-provided competent responses, and showed a trend toward more frequently judging a story character as being mean. A social problem solving factor predicted unique variance in psychosocial adjustment beyond variance accounted for by nonverbal intelligence and nonverbal social cue interpretation. Results are discussed within a framework for which social cognitive deficits more broadly defined than encoding and interpreting nonverbal social cues contribute to the psychosocial adjustment problems of children with NLD.

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)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Learning DisabilitiesSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207