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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical analyses of patients with acquired dysgraphia provide unique opportunities to understand the cognitive and neural organization of written language production. We report J.B., a 50-year-old woman with peripheral dysgraphia who had prominent dissociations in her ability to write in lowercase versus uppercase and print versus cursive. We gave J.B. a series of tasks that evaluated her skills at writing uppercase and lowercase print and cursive, spelling aloud and in writing, writing numbers and symbols, and visual letter recognition and imagery. She was impaired in printing letters, with lowercase more affected than uppercase, but her cursive writing was relatively intact. This pattern was consistent across letter, word, and nonword writing tasks. She was unimpaired on tasks assessing her visual recognition and imagery of lowercase and uppercase letters. Her writing of numbers was preserved. J.B.'s handwriting disorder was accompanied by a central phonological dysgraphia. Our findings indicate functional independence of graphomotor programs for print and cursive letter styles and for letters and numbers. We discuss the relationship between peripheral and central writing disorders.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it