Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to examine the relationships between social activity and aphasia. Thirty-eight people with chronic aphasia and their closest relative completed a newly developed Social Network with Aphasia Profile (SNAP) and relatives completed a Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) during the summer months of the year 2000. The SNAP requires a record to be kept over a consecutive seven-day period of who the person with aphasia sees (e.g., doctor, brother), where they see them (e.g., hospital, gym, pub), and why (e.g., to attend group meeting, shopping). A multiple regression analysis was carried out using the number of hours people spent out of their home as the independent variable, and severity of aphasia, age, time since onset and presence of hemiplegia as dependent variables. This accounted for 30% of the variance and revealed that severity of aphasia has a particularly negative impact. Age and physical condition also have a negative impact. However, a rich social network was observed for some aphasic people. Only one participant was receiving speech-language therapy of two hours per week. Implications for reducing communication barriers, raising public awareness and service provision are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".