Évocation lexicale libre chez les patients atteints de la maladie de Parkinson : une analyse quantitative et qualitative des mots produits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude visait a explorer l'existence de differences qualitatives et quantitatives en evocation lexicale entre des patients atteints de la maladie de Parkinson (MP) et des sujets controles (SC). Un groupe de patients francophones atteints de la MP et un groupe de SC, apparies pour l'âge et le niveau de scolarite, ont effectue une tâche d'evocation lexicale libre ainsi que plusieurs tests neuropsychologiques. Le nombre de mots, la frequence, la familiarite, la concretude des mots et la strategie utilisee lors de l'evocation des mots ont ete analyses. Les resultats ont montre que les participants souffrant de la MP produisaient moins de mots que les SC, particulierement dans la premiere minute de la tâche d'evocation lexicale libre. Cependant, peu de differences qualitatives ont ete observees entre les deux groupes par rapport aux types de mots produits. Des liens semblent exister entre les resultats et les atteintes cognitives du groupe souffrant de la MP. Nous proposons que les deficits d'evocation lexicale observes dans la MP prennent leur origine dans les problemes executifs dont souffrent ces patients.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".