Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV Dyads for Estimating Global Intelligence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All possible two-subtest combinations of the core Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) subtests were evaluated as possible viable short forms for estimating full-scale IQ (FSIQ). Validity of the dyads was evaluated relative to FSIQ in a large clinical sample (N = 482) referred for neuropsychological assessment. Sample validity measures included correlations, mean discrepancies, and levels of agreement between dyad estimates and FSIQ scores. In addition, reliability and validity coefficients were derived from WAIS-IV standardization data. The Coding + Information dyad had the strongest combination of reliability and validity data. However, several other dyads yielded comparable psychometric performance, albeit with some variability in their particular strengths. We also observed heterogeneity between validity coefficients from the clinical and standardization-based estimates for several dyads. Thus, readers are encouraged to also consider the individual psychometric attributes, their clinical or research goals, and client or sample characteristics when selecting among the dyadic short forms.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it