Evidence-Based Practice for Cognitive-Communication Disorders after Traumatic Brain Injury
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
As clinicians, we sincerely believe that our intervention improves the lives of those we serve. In the case of neurogenic communication disorders, however, this belief is not always supported by data. The disability rights movement in the 1980s led us to consider client outcomes beyond clinical settings, and we had little measurable evidence that our intervention made a meaningful difference in these contexts. Reimbursement limitations further forced us to scrutinize our practice for evidence of both efficacy (a significant benefit demonstrated in a clinical trial) and effectiveness (benefit to an individual in clinical practice). At the same time, there was a movement toward evidence-based practice in medicine, led in part by the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. Thus, we joined a community of health care practitioners engaged in the process of creating evidence-based guidelines for intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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