MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065209039 · doi:10.1080/87565641.2004.9651920

Working Memory After Mild, Moderate, or Severe Childhood Closed Head Injury

2004· article· en· W2065209039 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Roncadin, Sharon Guger, Jennifer Archibald, Marcia A. Barnes, Maureen Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsClosed head injuryWorking memoryHead injuryPsychologyCognitionAudiologyTraumatic brain injuryDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with closed head injury (CHI) perform poorly on complex tasks requiring working memory (WM). It is unclear to what extent WM itself is compromised, and whether WM varies with factors related to the CHI, such as injury severity, age at injury, and time since injury. We studied verbal WM in 126 school-age children with CHI, divided into mild, moderate, and severe injury severity groups. WM distributions were significantly skewed toward lower scores in the moderate and severe groups, although the distribution in the mild group was normal. Age at injury and time since injury predicted WM components only for the moderate group. Survivors of moderate or severe childhood CHI have persisting WM deficits limiting the computational workspace required for many cognitive tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207