MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325270724 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v8n2p14

Aggression Behaviors in Children with and without Hearing Impairment

2016· article· en· W2325270724 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayhan Babaroğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is evaluating aggression behaviors of children with hearing impairment and comparing them with their peers who do not have any kind of hearing problems. For this purpose, 81 children with hearing impairment and 80 children with no hearing problems between the ages of 10-17 years were included in the study (a total of 161 children). The data of the study were obtained by Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and the General Information Form. According to the results of this study, the total aggressiveness varies depending on age and hearing children show less aggressive behaviors as they get older; however, in children with hearing impairment, no difference was observed in their aggressive behaviors depending on their ages; gender creates a difference in total aggression behaviors in both children groups with and without hearing impairment and boys show more aggression behaviors compared to girls; children, who received pre-school education, with impairment show more aggressive behaviors, the existence of another hearing impairment family member increases the physical and indirect aggression behaviors of children with hearing impairment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207