MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901245889 · doi:10.15353/joci.v14i1.3405

Social Fringe Dwellers: Can chat-bots combat bullies to improve participation for children with autism?

2018· article· en· W2901245889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Ireland, DanaKai Bradford, Geremy Farr‐Wharton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismSarcasmPsychologyEmpathyMainstreamAutism spectrum disorderSocial relationPsychological resilienceDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) can cause a gulf in communication that casts children with autism to the fringes of social and family life, despite the best efforts of their carers. These children often struggle with social interaction, lack of interest and empathy, and require intensive therapy to improve their ability to communicate with others. Improvements in social interaction are often hampered by experiences in which children with autism are more susceptible to being bullied. Social and communication technologies (e.g. smartphones and tablets), which children with autism tend to gravitate toward, and to which many families have access, may play a significant future role in building resilience and improving social interaction. Based on technology reviews and stakeholder interviews, we are developing modules for a machine learning artificial intelligence platform (a chat-bot) that assists children attending an Australian mainstream school to recognise and respond to social bullying and sarcasm, allowing bullied autistic children to develop the social prowess to withstand their aggressors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207