A systematic review of the factors affecting twice-exceptional students’ social and emotional development
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
In this paper, we present a systematic review of the factors influencing the social and emotional development of twice exceptional students. Eight studies among 331 published in English between January 2000 and January 2022 were determined through electronic databases. We conducted a systematic literature review by following the steps identified by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), including the processes related to data sources, search, data collection, eligibility criteria, data selection, and data analysis. Six themes were identified through the thematic analysis of these eight studies: self-concept, environment, friendship, achievement, labeling, and bullying. As a result of the analysis of the articles, it was seen that “achievement” affected the social and emotional development of twice exceptional students positively, while “bullying” affected the development negatively. However, other themes such as labeling, environment, friendship and self-concept were found to affect social and emotional development both positively and negatively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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