Quantifying qualitative features of Block Design performance among healthy older adults
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
Block Design tasks are neuropsychologically valuable, but standard scoring sacrifices potentially useful information that could elucidate the cognitive processes underlying performance failures. Qualitative indices that were proposed in the WAIS-R-NI [Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Morris, R., & Delis, D. (1991). The WAIS-R as a neuropsychological instrument [Manual]. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation] should help to remedy this situation but have received little research attention. We present WAIS-R Block Design data for 177 healthy older adults (aged 50-90) incorporating several qualitative measures, outlining normative ranges and examining age differences. Proportional scoring, counts of single-block placement and rotation errors, counts of parameter-violating errors such as breaking configuration, and availability of implicit grid information all offer potentially valuable supplementary data that can enrich clinical interpretation of Block Design protocols.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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