A comparison of two teaching procedures to establish generalized intraverbal‐tacting in children with autism
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".