Frontal injury: Impairments of fundamental processes lead to functional consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frontal functions, or impairments, have achieved the status of pornography: everyone knows them when they see them, but there is little agreement on their exact defining properties. Patients with frontal lobe lesions have impairments in planning, monitoring, sequencing, and inhibiting responses. They cannot organize complex behaviors. They are somehow simultaneously unaware and distractible, irritable and apathetic, violent and passive, impulsive and perseverative. They lack empathy, self-awareness, and emotional regulation. Patients often are incapacitated by frontal impairments that paradoxically are not at all obvious to most observers. To understand the effects of frontal lesions, science has sacrificed countless rats and nonhuman primates. Neuropsychology and Neurology have sanctified a few tests as the tests of frontal function, and then spent money, time, and the mental health of countless graduate students and research assistants trying to tease out of those tests some basic knowledge of frontal functions. Experimental Psychology has brought novel constructs to the problem of defining frontal functions, and modern neuroimaging has merged the traditional clinical and the novel experimental with imaging technology. (A quick PubMed search of “fMRI and frontal lobes” on October 12, 2005 retrieved 4,646 articles, the most recent, “An fMRI study of the Trail Making Test”.) Yet, confronted with a patient with a large right prefrontal lesion who cannot hold a job or even be relied upon to buy the groceries he set out to buy, we have precious few tools to define his problem and almost nothing to offer to fix it.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".