MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997769921 · doi:10.5430/wje.v9n6p98

Comparison of Multiple Intelligence Areas of Hearing and Visually Impaired Individuals in Terms of Age, Gender and State of Doing Sport

2019· article· en· W2997769921 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

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHearing impairedAnalysis of varianceAudiologyIntelligence quotientVisually impairedSpatial abilityMann–Whitney U testDevelopmental psychologyCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study is to review the multiple intelligence domains of the individuals belonging to two different disability groups (hearing impaired and visually impaired). The study comprises of 63 adults in total, 34 hearing impaired and 29 visually impaired. In order to obtain data, “Multiple Intelligence Inventory” developed by Gülşen (2015) was applied to the respondents as well as the descriptive questions. In the study, t test and Mann Whitney U, and Kruskal Wallis and One Way ANOVA were used. When the multiple intelligence score averages were compared according to the gender variable, the interpersonal intelligence score averages of the females were found to be significantly different than that of the males (p<0.05). It was determined that the naturalistic intelligence score averages of the individuals at the age of 35 or above were significantly higher when the score averages of multiple intelligence domains were compared in terms of age variable and the bodily – kinesthetic intelligence of the individuals doing sports was seen to be significantly higher than those who did not do any sports (p<0.05). When the average scores of multiple intelligence domains were compared in regard to the state of disability variable, the mathematical-logical intelligence of the hearing impaired was found to be significantly higher than the visually impaired (p<0.05). The visual-spatial intelligence of the hearing impaired was observed to be significantly higher than the visually impaired (p<0.05). The musical intelligence of the visually impaired was found to be significantly higher than the hearing impaired (p<0.05). The intelligence score averages of the visually impaired were determined to be significantly higher than the hearing impaired for the interpersonal intelligence domain (p<0.05). It was found that the intrapersonal intelligence of the hearing impaired was higher than the visually impaired (p<0.05). The less developed intelligence domains of the impaired can be worked actively and improved by making regulations in a way that the impaired can involve more in the social life and by allowing them to be exposed to environmental warnings more.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.276 · 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