When IQ is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning 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
School psychologists in North America are facing a transformation of their professional practices brought about by impending changes in operational definitions of learning disabilities (LD). This multimethod study explores the learning disabilities-related beliefs and practices of school psychologists in Western Australia, where these changes have already taken place, and where learning disabilities are not typically defined through IQ-achievement discrepancy models. School psychologists from Western Australia completed individual surveys and participated in focus group sessions that explored their range of practice in schools and their beliefs about the nature of LD. Results from the survey revealed that in contrast to North American practitioners, West Australian school psychologists spend less time on psychometric assessment, and more time on consultation and counselling activities. Surprisingly, most West Australian school psychologists continue to use IQ tests in LD assessment and to hold beliefs about LD that are consistent with ‘traditional’ definitions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.008 |
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