MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146221281 · doi:10.1177/1088357614522289

Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorders

2014· article· en· W2146221281 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brenda Clark, Joyce Magill‐Evans, Cyndie Koning

Bibliographic record

VenueFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsAutismPsychologyClinical psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Autism spectrum disorderAdaptive behaviorDevelopmental psychologyProxy (statistics)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality of life (QoL) for persons with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and factors associated with QoL are not well understood. Prior literature has relied on parent-report though this is changing. It may be important to consider both parent-reported QoL and self-report. This study explored QoL in 22 Canadian adolescents (3 girls, 19 boys) ages 13 to 18 years ( M = 15.2 years). Adolescents completed the 10 subscales of the KIDSCREEN-52, a standardized questionnaire, while their parents completed the proxy form of the measure and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–II. Both parents and adolescents reported mean QoL scores in the lower average range. Intra-class correlation coefficients between parent and self-report were similar to adolescents without special needs except for four subscales. Correlations between QoL and the General Adaptive Composite score were remarkably low. Adolescents with ASD respond differently from their parents in some areas and both reports should be considered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations66
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFocus on Autism and Other Developmental DisabilitiesSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207