MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126245349 · doi:10.1177/215416471204700205

Teaching Social Skills to Children with Autism Using the Cool versus Not Cool Procedure

2012· article· en· W2126245349 on OpenAlexaff
Justin B. Leaf, Kathleen Tsuji, Brandy Griggs, Andrew Edwards, Mitchell Taubman, John McEachin, Ronald Leaf, Misty L. Oppenheim‐Leaf

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation and training in autism and developmental disabilities · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMultiple baseline designSocial skillsAutismAutism spectrum disorderDevelopmental psychologySocial behaviorIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effects of the cool versus not cool procedure for teaching three children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder eight social skills. The cool versus not cool procedure is a social discrimination program used to increase children's ability to display appropriate social behaviors. In this study, the cool versus not cool procedure consisted of the participants observing the researcher demonstrating a social behavior either appropriately or inappropriately, followed by the participants discriminating whether the researcher demonstration was “cool” (appropriate) or “not cool” (inappropriate). For some social skills the participants role-played the social behavior following the researcher demonstration. Results indicated that participants reached mastery criterion on 50% of targeted social skills with the researcher demonstration and on an additional 37.5% of targeted social skills with researcher demonstrations plus role-plays. Only one participant on one social skill (12.5%) was unable to reach mastery criterion although performance increased from baseline.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation and training in autism and developmental disabilitiesSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207