MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547049711 · doi:10.1300/j198v02n02_04

Life Participation Approaches to Aphasia

2003· article· en· W1547049711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larry Boles, Mimi Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaRehabilitationContext (archaeology)PsychologySocial lifePsychotherapistSociologyCognitive psychologySocial scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper discusses a recent development in aphasia treatment, termed the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA) (Chapey et al., 2001). LPAA is a model of aphasia rehabilitation that is being practiced internationally in Canada, Australia, England, and the United States. This approach is consumer-driven, and emphasizes reengagement in life. LPAA views family members and the larger community as active contributors to the rehabilitation process. Rather than focusing on the hypothetical situations depicted in pictures, real-life social interactions comprise the therapy context with LPAA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social Work in Disability & RehabilitationSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207