Relevance is in the eye and ear of the beholder: An example from populations with a neurological impairment
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
Describing problems of relevance in clinical populations has been a subject of interest for both theoreticians and clinicians. The argument that conversational relevance is a product of listener interpretation is supported in the present paper. Study 1 examines the topic-shifting profiles of a social worker in conversation with normal elderly participants as compared to her profiles in conversation with participants with dementia. Study 2 compares semantic segments in conversations between this same social worker and a normal adult and a traumatically brain-injured adult. Qualitative differences were found in Study 1 in the types of topic shifts used, the possible reasons for these shifts, and the context to which the shifts related. In Study 2, differences were found in the types of relationships between semantic segments and in the relative proportion of implicit and explicit segments. Support is given for considering conversational partners' roles in determining relevance.
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