MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165888411 · doi:10.1123/apaq.18.1.18

Engagement in Playground Activities as a Criterion for Diagnosing Developmental Coordination Disorder

2001· article· en· W2165888411 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Jane Watkinson, Janice Causgrove Dunn, Nancy Louise Isabel. Cavaliere, Karen Calzonetti, Larry Wilhelm, Sean Dwyer

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyActivities of daily livingRepresentativeness heuristicDevelopmental psychologyProtocol (science)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose was to develop a valid protocol for use by physical educators in assessing whether children suspected of having developmental coordination disorder (DCD) meet the American Psychiatric Association (1994) diagnostic criterion of interference in activities of daily living when interference is defined as culturally subaverage engagement in activities of daily living in physical play (ADL-PP) on the playground. Participants were 136 children (75 girls, 61 boys) from Grades 1 to 4 at three elementary schools in Canada. Data were collected two ways: (a) three administrations of an ADL-PP self-report of activities done during recess and (b) observation of children’s ADL-PP during two recess periods. Examination of reactivity, accuracy, content relevance, and content representativeness of the ADL-PP report form indicated protocol validity. An example illustrating the use of the ADL-PP self-report protocol to identify interference is described.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdapted Physical Activity QuarterlySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207