MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028140595 · doi:10.1017/s1355617707070154

Cognitive rehabilitation in the elderly: A randomized trial to evaluate a new protocol

2006· article· en· W2028140595 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

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityHealth Sciences CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Cognitive rehabilitation therapyCognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides an introduction to, and overview of, several papers that resulted from a randomized control trial that evaluated a new cognitive rehabilitation protocol. The program was designed to improve general strategic abilities in ways that would be expressed in a broad range of functional domains. The trial, which was conducted on a sample of older adults who had experienced normal age-related cognitive decline, assessed performance in the following domains: memory, goal management, and psychosocial status. The general rationale for the trial, the overall experimental design, and the approach to statistical analyses that are relevant to each paper are described here. The results for each functional domain are reported in separate papers in this series.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.380 · 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