A Meta-Analysis of the Social Competence of Children with Learning Disabilities Compared to Classmates of Low and Average to High Achievement
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
This meta-analysis synthesized research since 1990 pertaining to the social competence of children with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Comparisons with average- to high-achieving classmates resulted in medium to large effect sizes for teachers' perceptions of social competence, peer preference ratings, positive peer nominations, global self-worth, and self-perceptions of scholastic performance. A second set of comparisons with children designated as low in academic achievement yielded moderate effect sizes for teachers' perceptions of social competence and for peer social preference ratings. Small effect sizes were obtained for global self-worth and self-perceptions of scholastic performance. It was concluded that (a) children with learning disabilities and children designated as low in academic achievement are at a greater risk for social difficulties than are average- to high-achieving children, and (b) children with learning disabilities and their low-achieving classmates do not appear to have accurate self-perceptions of social acceptance.
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