MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166847622 · doi:10.1177/0883073809336122

Present Conceptualization of Early Childhood Neurodevelopmental Disabilities

2009· review· en· W2166847622 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Shevell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychological interventionNeurodevelopmental disorderIntellectual disabilityDevelopmental psychologyLearning disabilityAutismCognitive psychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurodevelopmental disabilities are collectively a common problem in child health that frequently prompts neurologic assessment and intervention. They are a group of heterogeneous conditions that share a disturbance in the acquisition of basic developmental skills in a chronologically appropriate manner. Lacking uniform diagnostic means of ascertainment, their recognition depends on fulfilling present consensus opinion regarding the various subtypes now recognized. Distinctive subtypes of neurodevelopmental disabilities can be accurately diagnosed according to present consensus conceptualization. Dual diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disabilities in the same child is possible, given present opinion. It can be expected that these conceptualizations will be dynamic and guide ongoing research efforts that will elucidate basic mechanisms, effective therapeutic interventions, and evaluate outcomes.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207