MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2790753358 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v10n5p26

Intervention Programs for Developing Play Skills in Children With Autistic Spectrum Disorder to Foster Interaction

2018· article· en· W2790753358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faris Algahtani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistObservational studyAutismIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychological interventionAutism spectrum disorderAutistic spectrumRehabilitationClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial skillsMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autistic spectrum disorder has gained attention in terms of developing therapies and support to enhance the developmental and social attributes of children. The aim of this study is to assess the favourable influence of play therapies among autistic children. An observational analysis has been conducted in a local rehabilitation centre. A class of 250 autistic children, aged between 4 to 5 years, was evaluated. Pre and post analysis for common indications of autism were made with regard to the play therapy. The symptoms, concerning behavioural aspects, were recorded on a simple checklist. The study did not provide any concrete relevancy of being effective for play therapy among the autistic children. The study showed that interventions based on play skills are recognized as imperative approach to develop social associations among children. The developmental approaches of autistic children differ from normal children, as they require different facilities and special attention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→