A comparison of two teaching procedures to establish generalized intraverbal‐tacting in children with autism
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
Previous research has investigated generalized intraverbal-tacting by teaching children with autism to respond using autoclitic frames. The present study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of a Frame and a No Frame procedure across counterbalanced stimulus sets with 4 children with autism. In the Frame condition, children were taught to respond using autoclitic frames (e.g., "Shape square," "Number two," "Color green," "It's mummy," "S/he is drinking") corresponding to the verbal antecedent ("What shape?", "What number?", "What color?", "Who is it?", "What is s/he doing?"). In the No Frame condition, intraverbal-tacting was established without the autoclitic frame. Irrespective of stimuli employed, 2 children acquired intraverbal-tacting only in the Frame condition. The other 2 children acquired intraverbal-tacting in both conditions, with the Frame procedure requiring fewer teaching trials for 1 child and producing greater generalization for the other. Implications for clinical practice and the role of additive intraverbal stimulus control of autoclitic frames are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it