MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fractionation and Localization of Distinct Frontal Lobe Processes: Evidence from Focal Lesions in Humans

2002· book-chapter· en· W1534022219 on OpenAlexaff
Donald T. Stuss, Michael P. Alexander, Darlene Floden, Malcolm A. Binns, Brian Levine, Anthony R. McIntosh, Natasha Rajah, Stephanie J. Hevenor

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontal lobeCognitionPsychologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceExecutive functionsUnitary statePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter summarizes a decade or more of research on the functions of the frontal lobes through the study of patients with pathology restricted to that region. It begins with one assumption: there is no unitary frontal lobe process, no central executive. Evidence is presented to demonstrate that different cognitive processes can be related to distinct regions of the frontal lobes. A very brief review of the relation of less cognitive human abilities, such as humor appreciation and theory of mind, provides some support that even higher human abilities depend on the interaction of more distinct localizable functions. The chapter then moves from the location of distinct processes to the interaction of these in networks and cognitive systems. Finally, it presents the implications of the review.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations200
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207