MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403543882 · doi:10.1177/070674371105600308

Concept de soi physique et adolescents présentant une déficience intellectuelle: Effets de l'âge, du sexe et de la catégorie de poids

2011· article· fr· W2403543882 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jérôme Begarie, Christophe Maïano, Grégory Ninot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyGynecologyMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of age, sex, weight, and their interactions on global self-esteem (GSE) and physical self-concept in teenagers with intellectual disability (ID). METHOD: A sample of 353 teenagers with ID, aged 12 to 18 years, participated in this study. The Very Short Form of the Physical Self-Inventory—for adolescents with ID (PSI-VSF-ID) was used to assess GSE and physical self-perceptions (physical value perceived [PVP], sport skills [SS], physical condition, physical appearance, and strength). RESULTS: Multivariate covariance analyses show: (i) lower GSE and physical self levels (except for PVP) in females, compared with males; (ii) reduced GSE, PVP, SS, and perceived physical appearance (PPA) scores during adolescence; (iii) lower GSE, PVP, and PPA scores in obese adolescents, compared with overweight or normal weight peers; and (iv) lower PPA scores in obese females, compared with other teenagers. CONCLUSION: The sex and age results are almost identical to those for the general population, according to the literature. However, they are far from the main effect in the weight category.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207