MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387950529 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1031

An evaluation of video‐prompting procedures via telehealth to teach first aid skills to children with intellectual and developmental disabilities

2023· article· en· W4387950529 on OpenAlexaff
Brittney Sureshkumar, Kimberley L. M. Zonneveld

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthMinor (academic)PsychologyFirst aidMultiple baseline designIntellectual disabilityVideo feedbackMedical educationTelemedicineMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergencyIntervention (counseling)Health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unintentional injuries are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). First aid training involves teaching critical first aid skills, some of which are designed to treat unintentional injuries. To date, no study has (a) evaluated the effects of a video-prompting procedure to teach first aid skills to children with IDD or (b) attempted to teach these skills to children by using a telehealth delivery format. We used a concurrent multiple-baseline-across-skills design to evaluate the efficacy of a video-prompting procedure via telehealth to teach five children with IDD to perform first aid on themselves for insect stings, minor cuts, and minor burns under simulated conditions. For all participants, our procedure produced large improvements that maintained for a minimum of 4 weeks. Furthermore, the effects of the training generalized to novel confederates for all participants, and these effects maintained for a minimum of 4 weeks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Behavior AnalysisSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207