MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detecting Exaggeration and Malingering in Neuropsychological Assessment

2000· review· en· W2092404754 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

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsRiverview HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringExaggerationContext (archaeology)NeuropsychologyPsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuropsychological assessmentClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnification of symptoms or nonoptimal effort on neuropsychological tests, within the context of head injury litigation, can have several independent or related underlying causes. Therefore, detecting exaggeration does not automatically indicate that the individual is malingering. This article reviews the evaluative and differential diagnostic process and provides the clinician with suggestions regarding assessment methods. A forensic evaluation that does not include careful consideration of possible negative response bias should be considered incomplete.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.338 · 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