MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168703812 · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00162

A Better Look at Intelligence

2002· article· en· W2168703812 on OpenAlexaff
J. P. Das

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Directions in Psychological Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuropsychologyDyslexiaReading (process)Intervention (counseling)Learning disabilityCognitive neuropsychologyWorking memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitive scienceLinguisticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) model is offered as an alternative to the unidimensional conceptualization of intelligence as a general ability. The unidimensional conceptualization has not helped researchers and clinicians understand variations of cognitive functions within special populations such as individuals with learning disabilities, disorders of attention, or mental retardation. Neither has this conceptualization aided in program planning for these individuals. PASS is a model of cognitive function based on contemporary research in both cognition and neuropsychology and provides a theory for both assessment and intervention. This article reviews concepts and examples of PASS theory and its application to reading disabilities and mental retardation. For example, the article links dyslexia with a deficit in successive processing. It also identifies the major difficulties of individuals with Down syndrome in phonological memory and articulation. Further research on successive processing, and planning as it relates to language, is suggested.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations81
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Directions in Psychological ScienceSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207