MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975450584 · doi:10.1310/kqwl-3hql-4knm-5f4u

Evaluating Unilateral Spatial Neglect Post Stroke: Working Your Way Through the Maze of Assessment Choices

2004· review· en· W1975450584 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardized testNeglectStroke (engine)Unilateral neglectPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study identified, using a comprehensive review of the literature, 62 standardized and nonstandardized assessment tools that exist to evaluate unilateral spatial neglect (USN). Each standardized tool was critically appraised according to its purpose (hemispace assessed), psychometric properties, and client appropriateness. The findings on the 28 standardized tools were compiled into a USN Assessment Summary Guide to facilitate clinical decision-making regarding the standardized USN assessments that are appropriate for specific clients at different phases of their recovery post stroke.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.312 · 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