MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111159964 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.653

Clients' Perspectives on Problems Many Years after Traumatic Brain Injury

2000· article· en· W2111159964 on OpenAlex
Steven M. Dean, Angela Colantonio, G. Ratcliff, Susan K. Chase

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

VenuePsychological Reports · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyPsychosocialClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the types of self-reported main problems that persons report many years following a traumatic brain injury. This preliminary study is part of a large ongoing study of disability and handicap in adults following traumatic brain injury. As part of an extensive interview, subjects were asked an open-ended question regarding their current main problems which they thought resulted from their traumatic brain injury. Responses were obtained from 166 adult subjects (119 men and 47 women) whose time postinjury ranged from 9 to 24 years. Categories for responses were subsequently developed. The most commonly reported categories of problems were those relating to movement (39%), cognition (36%), and sensory impairment (31%). Findings suggest that subjects' long-term concerns were related to specific impairments more than to psychosocial, emotional, or behavioral issues. Methodological issues concerning this research are discussed in relation to findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.327 · 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