Self-awareness after traumatic brain injury: A comparison of measures and their relationship to executive functions
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.061
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.292
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Poor awareness of deficit is common after brain injury. Recent literature has examined various tools for measurement of this phenomenon; the most widely used being self-other rating scales. Although self-other scale measures have face validity, their criterion-related validity has not been adequately demonstrated, and there is little information as to whether and how they relate to other neuropsychological measures. The present study compared measurement of awareness by the Dysexecutive (DEX) Questionnaire self-other rating scale with the Self-Awareness of Deficits Interview (SADI), a semistructured interview measure. Evaluation of awareness by these measures was compared to tests of executive functioning and IQ. Results indicated significant, albeit marginal relationships between the two measures, and better correlation of the SADI with measures of frontal lobe functioning. The SADI also predicted injury severity.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
- Topic
- Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- University of Victoria
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsychologyNeuropsychologyClinical psychologyRating scaleExecutive functionsDysexecutive syndromeTraumatic brain injuryAcquired brain injuryNeuropsychological assessmentScale (ratio)Executive dysfunctionFrontal lobeDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognitionRehabilitation
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes