MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059349329 · doi:10.1080/13854040802665790

Effort Testing in Contemporary UK Neuropsychological Practice

2009· article· en· W2059349329 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

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyNeuropsychological testingDiversity (politics)Clinical PracticePsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineFamily medicinePolitical scienceCognitionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of members of the British Psychological Society Division of Neuropsychology (N = 588) was conducted via email to ascertain current practice with respect to the use of symptom validity testing (SVT) in clinical and legal neuropsychological assessments. Replies were received from 130 practicing neuropsychologists. Results showed that 59% frequently use SVT in legal assessments, but a minority (15%) employ them in clinical assessments. Practice in the UK is only moderately different to that in North America with respect to frequency of use of SVT, although methods employed showed greater diversity. Favored tests, respondents' justifications for use of SVT and rationales for not using SVT are reported.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.050 · 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