MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065690394 · doi:10.1080/13854041003712951

A Model to Approaching and Providing Feedback to Patients Regarding Invalid Test Performance in Clinical Neuropsychological Evaluations

2010· article· en· W2065690394 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 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyPsychologyTest (biology)Neuropsychological assessmentNeuropsychological testNeuropsychological testingCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyApplied psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of symptom validity assessment has become commonplace in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. However, clinicians often struggle with how to provide patients with feedback regarding invalid responding or effort, because of the sensitive nature of the information that must be conveyed. A conceptual framework for providing such feedback is outlined in clinical neuropsychological evaluations, and recommendations for how to handle complaints are offered. Our feedback model is not meant to apply to individuals referred by attorneys or other non-clinical third parties (e.g., independent medical examination companies).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.040
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.359
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.146 · 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