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
This study investigated the effectiveness of videotaped versus written discharge summaries in communicating patient information to rural physiotherapists. Twenty-seven rural Manitoba physiotherapists were randomly divided into two groups and tested after viewing videotapes and reading written summaries on four patients with neurological conditions. Group I saw the videotapes on the four patients first, then answered multiple choice questions regarding the patients' problems, goals and treatment for physiotherapy. Group II read the written reports first, then answered the same questions. The process was then repeated in reverse order. A statistically significant difference existed between Group I's videotape scores and Group II's written summary scores (t = 4.69, 25 d.f., p = 0.002, 1-tailed unpaired t test). There was no significant difference between Group I and Group II's videotapes score. A rating scale of the videotapes by the physiotherapists strongly supported videotaped communication. This study has relevance to those who need to communicate patient information to health care workers in distant locales.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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