MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773940845 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v26i2.608

THE DIAGNOSIS DILEMMA: DYSLEXIA AND VISUAL-SPATIAL ABILITY

2017· article· en· W2773940845 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Donna Kotsopoulos, Joanna Zambrzycka, Samantha Makosz

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsDyslexiaDilemmaPsychologyLearning disabilityPopulationDevelopmental psychologySpatial abilitySample (material)Cognitive psychologyReading (process)CognitionLinguisticsNeuroscienceDemographySociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual-spatial ability is important for mathematics learning but also for future STEMparticipation. Some studies report children with dyslexia have superior visual-spatial skills andother studies report a deficit. We sought to further explore the relationship between childrenformally identified as having dyslexia and visual-spatial ability. Despite our best efforts, anddespite recruiting from a large potential sample population, we were unable to secure asufficient amount of participants for statistical power. Thus, our findings consider the ethicaldilemma of diagnosis; namely, (1) how do children come to be tested for disabilities? And, (2)what are the potential implications, mathematical or otherwise, for children who havedisabilities but are not formally identified? This report has important implications for childrenwith disabilities and for educators.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207