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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing trend toward dedicated programs designed to improve the lives of people with aphasia and their families. We are referring to these programs collectively as "aphasia centers." These programs purportedly differ from more traditional medically based aphasia rehabilitation. However, there is no directory of aphasia centers and no definition of what constitutes such a program. Therefore, an online survey was designed to identify and describe aphasia centers in the United States and Canada. A 37-question survey was posted online via SurveyMonkey. An introductory letter was distributed by electronic mail to a listserv and mailing lists of programs associated with aphasia. Potential respondents who considered themselves an aphasia center were asked to complete the survey. A total of 33 survey responses were analyzed, and descriptive data were compiled resulting in a description of the following aspects of aphasia centers: demographic information, mission, admission and discharge policies, assessment practices, program logistics, staffing patterns, marketing, funding, and services offered. In addition, a qualitative analysis of written text responses revealed the following key themes that appear to characterize the responding programs: services that differ from traditional aphasia rehabilitation; a sense of community; a holistic focus on quality of life, psychosocial well-being, participation, and social support; the centrality of group interaction; and variety/intensity of services.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it