Functional analysis patterns of automatic reinforcement: A review and component analysis of treatment effects
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
Functional analysis (FA) conditions include different antecedent or consequent events that may disrupt responding. Thus, varying patterns of FA differentiation may predict treatment outcomes of problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. These patterns could be used to inform the development of individualized interventions. An approach to classifying these patterns is to categorize FA outcomes as attention condition lowest, demand condition lowest, and play condition lowest, according to the condition in which problem behavior is most disrupted. In Study 1, we applied this criterion to 120 datasets finding that 60% could be classified using this method, whereas 89% of datasets showed a disruption of 50% or higher. In Study 2, we conducted a treatment component analyses for 3 individuals whose FAs each exhibited one of the 3 distinct patterns. The results indicated that specific elements of the FA conditions could reduce problem behavior. The predictive utility of these disruption patterns is 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 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