MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126340304 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-093224

Exercise is medicine, for the body and the brain

2014· editorial· en· W2126340304 on OpenAlexafffund
Lindsay S. Nagamatsu, Leon Flicker, Arthur F. Kramer, Michelle W. Voss, Kirk I. Erickson, Chun Liang Hsu, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComprehensionReading (process)PsychologyReading comprehensionModality (human–computer interaction)Cognitive psychologyAphasiaNonverbal communicationStimulus modalityAudiologySensory systemLinguisticsDevelopmental psychologyMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aphasic patients were given tests assessing pantomime recognition, reading comprehension, aural comprehension, and naming ability to determine whether defective pantomime recognition could be the result of a disturbance of symbolic thinking also affecting linguistic functioning. Defects in pantomime recognition always occurred in conjunction with reading defects of at least comparable severity, but reading defects sometimes occurred without comparable defects in pantomime recognition. The relationship of pantomime recognition with both aural comprehension and naming ability was significantly weaker than that between pantomime recognition and reading comprehension. The implications of the findings with regard to other nonverbal aphasic symptoms and the role of sensory modality factors 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0150.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207