MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study of the Understanding of Gestural Communication in Children with Intellectual Disabilities in the Dynamics of Psychological Impact

2020· article· en· W3107860579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oksana V. Zashchirinskaia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVarimax rotationPsychologyNonverbal communicationGestureNormativeDevelopmental psychologyIntellectual disabilityDynamics (music)Borderline intellectual functioningTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyCognitionPsychometricsCronbach's alphaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The purpose of the study is to investigate the specific features of non-verbal communication in children with intellectual disabilities in the dynamics of psychological impact. Background: Gestures are one of the most important components of non-verbal communication. The development of non-verbal communication in children with intellectual disabilities contributes to their normal social adaptation. Method: To study the current state and dynamics of the development of the ability to recognise and understand gestures in the process of psychological influence, factor analysis was used by the principal component method with the use of varimax rotation. To verify the applicability of factor analysis to the selected variables, the Kaiser-Meier-Olkin measure of sample adequacy and Bartlett's sphericity test were used. Results: The data of the study showed that, depending on the level of intelligence or, more precisely, on the diagnosis given to the child, there are differences in the dynamics of the development of the components of non-verbal communication. Children with mild mental retardation display lower results than children with mixed specific disorders of psychological development and children with a normative level of intellectual development. Conclusion: The results obtained in the process of this study can be applied in practice by teachers and psychologists when working with children with intellectual disabilities

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207