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
This book provides clinicians with a theoretically motivated guide to the assessment of patients with cognitive complaints. Its main goal is to teach physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists how to assess cognition in the clinic or at the bedside based around the instrument, the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE), developed in Cambridge over many years and subsequently refined and modified. The latest version is the ACE-III, which is freely available and has been translated into many languages. The early chapters provide a framework in which aspects of cognition are considered as those with a distributed representation in the brain (such as attention and memory) versus those with more focal representation (such as language, praxis, and spatial abilities). There are descriptions of the major syndromes encountered in clinical practice, notably delirium and dementia, which have been updated to incorporate recent discoveries. There follows the all-important section on history taking and the ‘meat of the book’: how to perform bedside cognitive testing. The ACE-III is contrasted to other commonly used brief standardized mental test schedules (such as the Montreal Cognitive Examination). Sixteen cases with a full range of cognitive disorders illustrate the method recommended. Finally, there is an appendix outlining the range of formal tests commonly used in neuropsychological practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it