MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120531656 · doi:10.1177/0145445507309022

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test for Predicting Learning of Persons With Intellectual Disabilities

2008· review· en· W2120531656 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Modification · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversitySt.AmantUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImitationTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyReinforcementLearning disabilityPredictive validitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) Test uses standard prompting and reinforcement procedures to assess the ease or difficulty with which a testee is able to learn a simple imitation and five two-choice discriminations. The authors review studies that have examined performance of participants with developmental disabilities (DD) on the ABLA test to predict (a) performance on a variety of simple imitations and two-choice discriminations, (b) performance on three-choice and four-choice discriminations, (c) the relative efficacy of three presentation modes (objects vs. photographs vs. verbal descriptions) for assessing preferences, (d) compliance of adults with DD and children with and without DD, and (e) participants' ability to learn to respond to the spoken names of pictures of common objects. Across all five types of studies, the predictive validity of the ABLA test has been very high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.088 · 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