MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138944101 · doi:10.1177/0145445507303845

Errorless Acquiescence Training

2007· article· en· W2138944101 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Ducharme, Anthony Folino, Janine DeRosie

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Modification · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcquiescencePsychologyProsocial behaviorIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Errorless acquiescence training (EAT) was developed as a graduated, success-focused, and short-term intervention for building social skills. The approach focuses on building the skill of acquiescence (i.e., teaching children to be flexible with the needs and will of peers). The authors predict that acquiescence would serve as a keystone, that is, a skill that when trained produces widespread improvements in child behavior, including reductions in antisocial behavior. The authors provide EAT to eight children referred to a clinical classroom for severe antisocial behavior. Consistent with errorless paradigms, key intervention components present at the initiation of intervention are systematically faded at a slow enough rate to ensure continued prosocial interactions throughout and following treatment. Children demonstrate substantial increases in acquiescent responding and other prosocial behavior as well as covariant reductions in antisocial behaviors. Acquiescence is discussed in terms of its potential as a keystone for prosocial responding in children with antisocial behavior.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.566
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavior ModificationSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207