Apresentando um instrumento de avaliação da comunicação à Fonoaudiologia Brasileira: Bateria MAC
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
BACKGROUND: an assessment instrument to evaluate communication impairment after right brain damage: the Montreal Communication Evaluation Battery, an adapted brazilian version of the original canadian instrument--Protocole Montréal d'Evaluation de la Communication. Instruments that evaluate discursive, pragmatic, lexical-semantic and prosodic impairments are important for the diagnosis of communication disorders which are present in approximately 50% of the individuals with right brain damage. Systematic studies of the communication profile after lesions on this side of the brain have been carried out only during the last two decades. AIM: to present the Montreal Communication Evaluation Battery to brazilian speech therapists. CONCLUSION: the described instrument is an useful tool in the clinic for assessing four processes related to the communicative and linguistic abilities: discursive, pragmatic-inferential, lexical-semantic and prosodic components. It is has been normalized, validated and its reliability has been confirmed. Although this instrument was developed and adapted for diagnosing communication disorders in individuals with right brain damage people, it can also be helpful in investigating communication sequels in traumatic brain injury, dementia, bilateral frontal lesions, left-brain damage, psychopathologies, such as schizophrenia, among others.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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