Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Surveys have revealed that a high proportion of the public in the US and Canada hold misconceptions pertaining to the sequelae of brain injury. This study examined whether similar misconceptions are endorsed by adults in Britain. RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Three hundred and twenty-two participants completed a 17-item questionnaire containing true or false statements about general knowledge of brain injury, coma and consciousness, memory impairments and recovery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Regardless of age, sex, level of education and familiarity with brain injury, participants held mistaken beliefs about consciousness, were inclined to under-estimate the extent of memory deficits and were unaware that patients are more vulnerable and less resistant to further injury. A large proportion of respondents indicated that their knowledge of brain injury had been derived from the popular media. CONCLUSIONS: Similar misconceptions to those reported in previous studies exist in Britain. Notably in this study these misconceptions were endorsed by a greater percentage of respondents. Greater public awareness is needed for decisions concerning funding and patient care. It is therefore important for healthcare professionals and public health campaigns to dispel myths about brain injury.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".