MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1172059743 · doi:10.1080/13554794.2015.1081391

Production of morphologically derived words in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia: preserved decomposition and composition but impaired validation

2015· article· en· W1172059743 on OpenAlexafffund
Noémie Auclair‐Ouellet, Marion Fossard, Michèle Houde, Robert Laforce, Joël Macoir

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAffixNeologismAphasiaPrimary progressive aphasiaPsychologyRoot (linguistics)VerbLinguisticsPopulationNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCognitive psychologyMedicinePathologyDementiaPhilosophyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is growing interest in inflectional morphology in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), derivational morphology has rarely been studied in this population. This study reports the performance of N.G., a 72-year-old-woman with svPPA in a verb production task designed to entail morphological processing (composition, decomposition) and self-appraisal of her productions. N.G. demonstrated an over-reliance on morphological processing and failures in her appraisal of root/affix combinations that resulted in the production of morphological paraphasias and neologisms. Her performance in lexical decision of verbs and pseudo-verbs points to the involvement of semantic impairment in these difficulties.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207