MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407794684 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxae087

L’évaluation et les soins des enfants chez qui on présume un trouble d’apprentissage en pratique communautaire

2024· article· fr· W4407794684 on OpenAlexaff
Justine Cohen-Silver, Meta van den Heuvel, Sloane Freeman, Tara Chobotuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMedicinePolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les difficultés d’apprentissage sont courantes chez les enfants d’âge scolaire, puisque de 5 % à 10 % répondent aux critères de trouble spécifique des apprentissages (qu’on appelait auparavant simplement « trouble d’apprentissage »). En pratique communautaire, elles peuvent se manifester par des problèmes de comportement, l’évitement scolaire ou des symptômes de problème de santé mentale. Les problèmes connexes peuvent inclure un trouble de santé mentale, une affection génétique, métabolique ou neurologique ou un retard de développement. Le présent point de pratique fournit des conseils aux professionnels de la santé auprès des enfants eu égard aux manifestations et aux diagnostics de trouble spécifique des apprentissages, y compris de l’information sur les évaluations psychoéducatives, le bilan médical des enfants qui ont des difficultés d’apprentissage, les possibles problèmes comorbides ainsi que les points à améliorer et les prises de position en appui aux familles et aux enfants qui présentent une série de problèmes d’apprentissage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207