MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148671719 · doi:10.1177/0145445511436006

Errorless Academic Compliance Training

2012· article· en· W2148671719 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Ducharme, Olivia Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Modification · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)AutismAutism spectrum disorderApplied behavior analysisMultiple baseline designClassroom managementHierarchyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyPedagogySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Errorless academic compliance training is a graduated, noncoercive approach to treating oppositional behavior in children. In the present study, three teaching staff in a special education classroom were trained to conduct this intervention with three male students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. During baseline, staff delivered a range of academic and other classroom requests and recorded student compliance. A hierarchy of compliance probabilities was then calculated, ranging from Level 1 (requests yielding high levels of compliance) to Level 4 (those typically yielding noncompliance). At treatment initiation, teaching staff delivered high densities of Level 1 requests and provided reinforcement for compliance. Subsequent request levels were faded in over time, at a slow enough rate to ensure continued high compliance. By intervention end, all three students demonstrated substantially improved compliance to classroom requests that had commonly yielded noncompliance before intervention. Covariant improvement in on-task skills was also evident.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.803
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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