MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Parkinson's Disease Affects Non‐verbal Communication and Language Processing

2008· article· en· W2070509597 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Linguistics Compass · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)ComprehensionCognitionPsychologyCognitive psychologyNonverbal communicationLiteral (mathematical logic)Tone (literature)LinguisticsCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In addition to difficulties that affect movement, many adults with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience changes that negatively impact on receptive aspects of their communication. For example, some PD patients have difficulties processing non‐verbal expressions (facial expressions, voice tone) and many are less sensitive to ‘non‐literal’ or pragmatic meanings of language, at least under certain conditions. This chapter outlines how PD can affect the comprehension of language and non‐verbal expressions and considers how these changes are related to concurrent alterations in cognition (e.g., executive functions, working memory) and motor signs associated with the disease. Our summary underscores that the progressive course of PD can interrupt a number of functional systems that support cognition and receptive language, and in different ways, leading to both primary and secondary impairments of the systems that support linguistic and non‐verbal communication.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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