MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Language and Communicative Functions as well as Verbal Fluency in Children with High-Functioning Autism

2015· article· en· W2133452322 on OpenAlex
Aneta Rita Borkowska

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerseverationVerbal fluency testFluencyAutismLexiconDevelopmental psychologyTask (project management)High-functioning autismCognitive psychologyLinguisticsCognitionNeuropsychologyAutism spectrum disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was designed to investigate selected aspects of language and communicative functions as well as verbal fluency in children with HFA. The study group comprised 51 children, aged 10-12, including 23 subjects diagnosed with High-Functioning Autism, with normal IQ and able to communicate verbally, as well as a group of 28 controls. The applied tools included RHLB-PL Battery, a verbal fluency task and WISC-R Vocabulary subtest. The findings show significantly varied profiles of the investigated functions in the group of children with HFA. In comparison with their peers, they have greater difficulties drawing logical conclusions from stories. They find it difficult to grasp humour conveyed by linguistic expression and by metaphors, presented with the use of both linguistic materials and drawings. They have lower capacitates for understanding prosodic (emotional and language) aspects of utterances addressed to them. It has been established that they are able to correctly understand isolated words and recognize their designates despite the present distractors. No generalized deficits have been found in the subjects’ verbal fluency. In comparison to the controls, the children with HFA generated similar number of words matching the phonemic criterion. Furthermore, their performance showed no perseverations, and comparably frequent clustering and switching. Lexicon matching the semantic criterion was more difficult to access for the children with HFA than for the controls. Children with HFA had difficulties in defining familiar words.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.271 · 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