MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248942624 · doi:10.7213/rpa.v23i43.19623

ESTUDO NORMATIVO DA BATERIA PIAGET-HEAD PARA CRIANÇAS DA CIDADE DE CURITIBA: DADOS PRELIMINARES

2017· article· pt· W4248942624 on OpenAlexaff
Plínio Marco de Toni, Egídio José Romanelli, Caroline Guisantes de Salvo

Bibliographic record

VenuePsicologia Argumento · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuritibaHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A presente pesquisa teve como objetivo realizar um estudo normativo preliminar dos subtestes Piaget 1, 2 e 3 (Bateria Piaget-Head) para crianças e adolescentes da cidade de Curitiba-PR. A Bateria Piaget-Head é utilizada na avaliação neuropsicológica e pretende avaliar o desenvolvimento da orientação direita-esquerda. A escolha deste instrumento é relevante por três fatores: a orientação direita-esquerda está relacionada a problemas de aprendizagem; a Bateria Piaget-Head é um dos poucos instrumentos utilizados no Brasil para a avaliação da orientação direita-esquerda; desde a construção do instrumento em 1950 na França, nenhuma normatização foi realizada para a realidade brasileira. Fizeram parte da amostra 102 crianças de 7 a 13 anos, de ambos os sexos, matriculados em escolas públicas e particulares de Curitiba. Os resultados não apontam diferenças nos escores entre os gêneros, escolas públicas e particulares e destros e canhotos. Verificou-se correlação positiva significativa entre itens pares e ímpares do subteste Piaget 3, evidenciando boa consistência interna do subteste. Foram realizadas tabelas de percentis por idade, além de uma comparação dos resultados encontrados com a normatização francesa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsicologia ArgumentoSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207