MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465354302 · doi:10.5539/mas.v10n10p99

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Aurora-a Battery on Children

2016· article· en· W2465354302 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Aghababaei, Mokhtar Malekpour, Ahmad Abedi

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYale University
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisTest (biology)Factor (programming language)PsychologyIdentification (biology)Battery (electricity)CognitionStatisticsComputer scienceStructural equation modelingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this research is confirmatory factor analysis of Aurora-a Battery on Iranian children. Aurora-a Battery is a cognitive assessment according to Robert J. Sternberg’s theory of Successful Intelligence. 400 children 9-12 years old were selected through multi-steps sampling method and were tested with Aurora-a test. These children were from geographically diverse schools in Isfahan city, Iran. The factor analysis of data was performed through Amos software. Fit indices show that data fit with model. Moreover, the correlation between test total score and the analytical, creative and practical intelligences were 0.91, 0.94 and 0.84, respectively. Alpha for Aurora’s total score was equal to 0.92 as well. Aurora-a test can be an appropriate and valid instrument for identification gifted children aged 9-12 according to Sternberg’s theory of successful intelligence. This test allows many children to be identified as gifted which in turn provides the opportunity of further development of their potential.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207