MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788013076 · doi:10.1353/aad.2018.0005

In the Rearview Mirror: Social Skill Development in Deaf Youth, 1990–2015

2018· review· en· W2788013076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Cawthon, Bentley Fink, Sarah Schoffstall, Erica Wendel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican annals of the deaf · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryPsychologySocial skillsNegotiationSocial cognitionDevelopmental psychologySet (abstract data type)Quarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)Cognitive skillCognitionSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social skills are a vehicle by which individuals negotiate important relationships. The present article presents historical data on how social skills in deaf students were conceptualized and studied empirically during the period 1990-2015. Using a structured literature review approach, the researchers coded 266 articles for theoretical frameworks used and constructs studied. The vast majority of articles did not explicitly align with a specific theoretical framework. Of the 37 that did, most focused on socioemotional and cognitive frameworks, while a minority drew from frameworks focusing on attitudes, developmental theories, or ecological systems theory. In addition, 315 social-skill constructs were coded across the data set; the majority focused on socioemotional functioning. Trends in findings across the past quarter century and implications for research and practice are examined.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican annals of the deafSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207