PREDICTING THE RELATIVE EFFICACY OF THREE PRESENTATION METHODS FOR ASSESSING PREFERENCES OF PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choices were presented to 9 individuals with developmental disabilities using a two-choice format. Each pair of items, selected based on prior preference assessment, was presented to each participant in three conditions (actual items, pictures of the items, and spoken-name presentation) using a reversal design. The evaluation was conducted using food items, and was then repeated using nonfood items. The participants were also given a test to measure their skills on discrimination tasks ranging in difficulty from simple to conditional discriminations. The participants' abilities to make consistent choices with food and nonfood items were predicted, with 94% accuracy, by their discrimination skills. The findings suggest that presentation methods can affect the accuracy of a choice assessment, and that the systematic assessment of basic discrimination skills can be used to predict the effectiveness of different presentation methods in this population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it