MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141143973 · doi:10.1017/s0954579414000522

Social attribution skills of children born preterm at very low birth weight

2014· article· en· W2141143973 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Williamson, Lorna S. Jakobson

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Psychopathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAttributionLow birth weightBirth weightDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPregnancySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children born prematurely at very low birth weight (<1500 g) are at increased risk for impairments affecting social functioning, including autism spectrum disorders (e.g., Johnson et al., 2010). In the current study, we used the Happé-Frith animated triangles task (Abell, Happé, & Frith, 2000) to study social attribution skills in this population. In this task, typical viewers attribute intentionality and mental states to shapes, based on characteristics of their movements. Participants included 34 preterm children and 36 full-term controls, aged 8-11 years. Groups were comparable in terms of age at test, gender, handedness, and socioeconomic status; they also performed similarly on tests of selective attention/processing speed and verbal intelligence. Relative to full-term peers, preterm children's descriptions of the animations were less appropriate overall; they also overattributed intentionality/mental states to randomly moving shapes and underattributed intentionality/mental states to shapes that seemed to be interacting socially. Impairments in the ability to infer the putative mental states of triangles from movement cues alone were most evident in children displaying more "autistic-like" traits, and this may reflect atypical development of and/or functioning in, or atypical connections between, parts of the social brain.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and PsychopathologySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207