Discourse Macrolevel Processing After Severe Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury
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
The purpose of this study was to determine if discourse macrolevel processing abilities differed between children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) at least 2 years postinjury and typically developing children. Twenty-three children had sustained a severe TBI either before the age of 8 (n = 10) or after the age of 8 (n = 13). The remaining 32 children composed a control group of typically developing peers. The groups' summaries and interpretive lesson statements were analyzed according to reduction and transformation of narrative text information. Compared to the control group, the TBI group condensed the original text information to a similar extent. However, the TBI group produced significantly less transformed information during their summaries, especially those children who sustained early injuries. The TBI and control groups did not significantly differ in their production of interpretive lesson statements. In terms of related skills, discourse macrolevel summarization ability was significantly related to problem solving but not to lexical or sentence level language skills or memory. Children who sustain a severe TBI early in childhood are at an increased risk for persisting deficits in higher level discourse abilities, results that have implications for academic success and therapeutic practices.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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