Estimations of Competence in Neurodevelopmental Conditions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimations of competence paradigms offer methods to help us measure how well we track our performance. Bridging across the clinical research and metacognitive research traditions, we identified the Positive Illusory Bias (PIB), metamemory and meta-reasoning paradigms for assessing estimation of competence in neurodevelopmental conditions. Overall, studies from PIB paradigms suggest that individuals with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism, Intellectual Disability and Learning Disability tend to display a positive bias in their performance relative to other informants. In metamemory paradigms, individuals with these neurodevelopmental conditions tend to show more discrepancy between their subjective judgments and their memory performance relative to comparison controls, but these findings have been less consistent than for PIB. Meta-reasoning has been less well-studied across neurodevelopmental conditions. In order to advance our understanding of whether estimation of competence is a significant domain for understanding neurodevelopmental conditions, consideration must be given to conceptual models for each neurodevelopmental condition, methodological issues (paradigm selection and interpretation of self-report and subjective judgment) and developmental considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it