MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982002663 · doi:10.5539/jel.v8n6p39

A Review of the Multiple-Intelligence Domains of Physically Handicapped Individuals in Terms of Certain Demographic Attributes

2019· review· en· W2982002663 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicProblem Solving Skills Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMann–Whitney U testTest (biology)PopulationAnalysis of varianceKruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of varianceIntelligence quotientDevelopmental psychologyDemographyStatisticsCognitionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to review the multiple intelligence domains of physically handicapped individuals with regard to certain variables. The population of the study consists of 40 physically handicapped adults in total, 13 females and 27 males, between the ages of 16 to 58 with an age average of 30.80 ± 9.78 who were members of Association of the Physically Handicapped and who participated into the study voluntarily in Samsun province, in 2017. In addition to the descriptive questions about age, gender, educational background and whether they did sports or not, “Multiple Intelligence Inventory” developed by Gülşen (2015) was applied to the respondents in order to obtain data. In the study, t test and Mann Whitney U test for the paired comparisons, and Kruskal Wallis and One Way ANOVA test for the triple comparisons and above were used to compare multiple intelligence theory score averages of the physically handicapped individuals in terms of the variables of gender, age, educational background and whether they do sports or not. Level of significance was taken as (p < 0.05). It was found that there was a significant difference between the logical/mathematical intelligence domain score averages of female and male participants (p < 0.05). It was seen that the logical/mathematical intelligence domain of males was more dominant than that of females. A statistically significant difference was observed at the Visual/Spatial and Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence domains with regard to age group variable (p < 0.05). In addition, when the multiple intelligence score averages were compared according to whether individuals do sports or not, the logical/mathematical intelligence domain of those doing sports was significantly higher than that of those who did not do sports (p < 0.05). The results can be interpreted as that doing sports may develop logical-mathematical intelligence of individuals. The study also shows that none of the fields of intelligence differs statistically in terms of the variable of educational status.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.366 · 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