Adult Clinical Neuropsychology: Lessons from Studies of the Frontal Lobes
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.881
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Clinical neuropsychologists have adopted numerous (and sometimes conflicting) approaches to the assessment of brain-behavior relationships. We review the historical development of these approaches and we advocate an approach to clinical neuropsychology that is informed by recent findings from cognitive neuroscience. Clinical assessment of executive and emotional processes associated with the frontal lobes of the human brain has yet to incorporate the numerous experimental neuroscience findings on this topic. We review both standard and newer techniques for assessment of frontal lobe functions, including control operations involved in language, memory, attention, emotions, self-regulation, and social functioning. Clinical and experimental research has converged to indicate the fractionation of frontal subprocesses and the initial mapping of these subprocesses to discrete frontal regions. One anatomical distinction consistent in the literature is that between dorsal and ventral functions, which can be considered cognitive and affective, respectively. The frontal lobes, in particular the frontal poles, are involved in uniquely human capacities, including self-awareness and mental time travel.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Topic
- Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Field
- Neuroscience
- Canadian institutions
- Baycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsychologyFrontal lobeNeuropsychologyCognitive neuropsychologyCognitive psychologyClinical neuropsychologyCognitionNeuroscienceCognitive neuroscienceNeuroimagingNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes