MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921696724 · doi:10.1002/jaba.550

Comparison of two TAGteach error‐correction procedures to teach beginner yoga poses to adults

2019· article· en· W2921696724 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationApplied psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching with acoustical guidance involves auditory feedback (e.g., a click sound when a desired behavior occurs) as part of a multicomponent intervention known as TAGteach. TAGteach has been found to improve performance in sport, dance, surgical technique, and walking. We compared the efficacy and efficiency of the standard TAGteach error-correction procedure and a modified TAGteach error-correction procedure to teach 4 novice adult yoga practitioners beginner yoga poses. Both error-correction procedures were effective for all participants; however, the relative efficiency of these error-correction procedures was unclear. Results are discussed in terms of limitations and considerations for future research.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.368 · 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