MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772380711 · doi:10.1177/0145445517746916

Follow-Up Study of Youth Who Received EIBI as Young Children

2017· article· en· W2772380711 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Modification · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesBrock UniversityYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaBrock UniversityYork University
KeywordsPsychologyAutismCognitionDevelopmental psychologyIntervention (counseling)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) has been clearly shown to be evidence-based, there is very little information available regarding long-term outcomes, especially from community effectiveness studies. We present data on cognitive, adaptive, and autism severity measures from four time points (pre- and post-EIBI and two follow-up points) for a sample of 21 youth, currently aged 16 years on average (range = 13-20) who received EIBI as young children and who have been out of EIBI for a mean of 10 years (range = 8.5-14). Results show heterogeneous outcomes and a general pattern of stability since the end of EIBI, suggesting gains made in EIBI are maintained.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.250 · 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