MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172163042 · doi:10.3109/17518423.2012.758184

Statistical persistence and timing characteristics of repetitive circle drawing in children with ASD

2013· article· en· W2172163042 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda Fleury, Azadeh Kushki, Nadia Tanel, Evdokia Anagnostou, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Autism spectrum disorderPsychologyTask (project management)AutismDevelopmental psychologyDynamics (music)Typically developingPopulationAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Standardized tests to assess movement difficulties in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) evaluate motor output, but do not provide information about underlying dynamics. The objective of this research is to study the statistical persistence and temporal dynamics of a circle drawing task in children with ASD. METHODS: For this study 15 children diagnosed with ASD, aged 4-8 years, were asked to draw circles under various conditions using a computerized tablet. We then assessed fractal dynamics and global temporal dynamics (mean and coefficient of variation) and compared these quantities to those of typically developing (TD) controls. RESULTS: No difference in statistical persistence was found between children with ASD and TD children. Temporal measures showed increased variability in the ASD population in the discontinuous task. CONCLUSION: Results support the hypothesis that children with ASD have an intact ability to consistently produce continuous movements, but increased variability in production of discontinuous movements.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207