MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086528313 · doi:10.1093/neucas/8.1.40

A Case Study of Pure Word Deafness: Modularity in Auditory Processing?

2002· article· en· W2086528313 on OpenAlexaff
Minola A. Pinard, Howard Chertkow, Sandra E. Black, Isabelle Peretz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsAudiologyPsychologyPerceptionAuditory cortexSet (abstract data type)Auditory neuropathyTemporal lobeAuditory perceptionComprehensionHearing lossCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AL, a woman with an acquired disturbance of auditory processing beginning in the second decade, was originally diagnosed as having pure word deafness. Recent analysis with a wide range of stimuli suggests that her comprehension deficit also extends to a subset of musical and non-verbal environmental sounds. The perceptual demands of the different auditory stimuli appear to account for part of the apparent material specificity. Additionally, over the years, the presumed temporal lobe cortical pathology has been supplemented by a mild to moderate, peripheral low-frequency hearing loss and evidence of dysfunction in lower level auditory processing pathways. The current peripheral dysfunction closely resembles cases recently labeled as auditory neuropathy. The diagnosis of pure word deafness should not be based on a limited set of auditory stimuli; additionally, a careful assessment using modern audiological techniques should be performed to evaluate peripheral auditory functions.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207