MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560949591 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v7n1p102

Application of the Theory of Mind, Theory of Executive Functions and Weak Central Coherence Theory to Individuals with ASD

2016· article· en· W2560949591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine K. Syriopoulou Delli, Asimis Varveris, Alexandra Geronta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of mindPsychologyCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Executive functionsAutismCognitionAutism spectrum disorderCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the application of three cognitive theories—the Theory of Mind (ToM) deficit, the Theory of Executive Functions (EF) and Weak Central Coherence Theory (WCC)—in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). 9 children with ASD and 18 children of Typical Development (TD) participated in the study. According to the results, most of the children with ASD showed significant deficits in the development of ToM, while a few of them succeeded in all the ToM tests. With regard to EF theory, the children with ASD did not present a deficit in any of the four executive functions in which they were examined, since their performances were similar to those of TD children. As for the WCC theory, the results cannot support the existence of a deficit. However, it seems that children with ASD struggle in respect of global precedence when a local interference effect is present.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207