Modern Ideas about Intellectual Disability in Medical Psychology in the Context of Non-Verbal Communication of Primary School Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study of intellectual disabilities in children and their diagnosis has become more and more relevant in recent years. In the 21st century, in terms of diagnostics and the implementation of psychological influences, the problem of identifying the features of communication skills in children with intellectual disabilities becomes very significant and urgent. Background: This study aims to review modern ideas about the role of intelligence in the development of communication. The methodological framework of this study was the combination of various theoretical methods of cognition. The author analysed the scientific literature of Russian and foreign researchers. Method: The following methods of scientific cognition were used: data synthesis and analysis. In the process of writing this work on the modern ideas of scientists, according to the subject matter, the author studied the current level of research on this issue. Results: The works of Russian and foreign scientists were considered, as well as conclusions, were drawn about the levels of study of the problem of intellectual disability in children. Conclusion: The practical significance of this study lies in the identification of modern ideas about intellectual disabilities. The study and research of this subject will provide opportunities for the development of a programme of psychological influence on the optimisation of non-verbal communication of 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".