MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096550403

Learning Disability and Socioeconomic Status

2016· article· en· W7096550403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusLearning disabilityPupilSocial classSample (material)Mental age
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From a sample of 333 children in grades 4 and 6 o f three western Canadian urban public schools, 35 were defined as learning disabled according to the criterion o f educational age less than 85 % of measured mental age and of chronological age. Eighteen were from families bvhose socioeconomic status was above the median for the total group and 17 from below the median. But-of the upper SES children, 13 (72.5%) had been diagnosed by the Pupil Services Department, whereas only 5 (35.2%) of the lower SES group had been diagnosed. Thus, no significant difference in defined learn-ing disability was found between children of above average and below average socioeconomic status, but the difference in the rate of diag-nosis bet ween socioeconomic groups was statistically significant in favor of children from higher socioeconomic status homes. The socioeconomic background of children who are referred for diagnosis of possible learn-ing disabilities and the actions taken in regard t o these children are important factors in understanding and assessing the role of the school in our society. Accurate and early diag-nosis of learning handicaps in school-aged children i s imperative if each child is to receive *Address inquiries to the second author (J.M.). the help which he or she requires. Within school districts there are children who are “high-risk’’ students in terms of the probability of their experiencing learning difficulties. There is con-siderable evidence to suggest that the social-class level of students is related t o their behavior and performance in school (Barber 1961, Jones 1965, Sexton 1964). Douglas (1 964) maintained that social class differences lead to increasing inequality of educational opportunity as the child progresses from grade to grade. Lower-class children are likely to be defi-cient in primary linguistic skills a t the time they enter school (Moffitt 1972) and, in turn, these deficient linguistic skills affect the secondary s k i l l s of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Studies show that the reading and arithmetic scores of children from lower socioeconomic status families are generally lower than those obtained by children from families of higher socioeconomic status (Deutsch 1960, Gordon &

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)0.004
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 score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207