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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aneta Rita Borkowska

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207