Discrimination Skills Predict Effective Preference Assessment Methods for Adults with Developmental Disabilities
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
We examined the relationship between three discrimination skills (visual, visual matching-to-sample, and auditory-visual) and four stimulus modalities (object, picture, spoken, and video) in assessing preferences of leisure activities for 7 adults with developmental disabilities. Three discrimination skills were measured using the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test. Three participants mastered a visual discrimination task, but not visual matching-to-sample and auditory-visual discriminations; two participants mastered visual and visual matching-to-sample discriminations, but not auditory-visual discrimination, and two participants showed all three discriminations. The most and least preferred activities, identified through paired-stimulus preference assessment using objects, were presented to each participant in each of the four modalities using a reversal design. The results showed that (1) participants with visual discrimination alone showed a preference for their preferred activities in the object modality only; (2) those with visual and visual matching-to-sample discriminations, but not auditory-visual discrimination, showed a preference for their preferred activities in the object but not in the spoken modality, and mixed results in the pictorial and video modalities; and (3) those with all three discriminations showed a preference for their preferred activities in all four modalities. These results provide partial replications of previous findings on the relationship between discriminations and object, pictorial, and spoken modalities, and extend previous research to include video stimuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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