MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334530957 · doi:10.1080/09602011.2016.1160833

A case study of topographical disorientation: behavioural intervention for achieving independent navigation

2016· article· en· W2334530957 on OpenAlexafffund
Josée Rivest, Eva Svoboda, Jeff McCarthy, Morris Moscovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychological Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorBaycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyIndependence (probability theory)WifeCognitive psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces an intervention that enabled a man (LH) with acquired topographical disorientation (TD) to travel independently without fear of getting lost. Adapting an errorless method, LH learned to use a smartphone to find his routes accurately and reliably. A time-series design (A1-B1-A2-B2) was used: In all phases, LH was given a printed map on which city locations were indicated. He had to walk to the indicated locations while naturalistic outcomes were recorded. In Phases A, he navigated without his smartphone, and in Phases B, with it. In Phases A, LH made numerous surplus direction changes, and openly expressed his frustration. In Phases B, he did not have surplus direction changes and could calmly find his routes. Before intervention, LH and his wife were frustrated and worried about his way-finding. They rated their confidence in his navigational ability and his actual ability in way-finding to various locations as low. After intervention, they were more confident that LH could travel by himself without getting lost and rated his ability as much higher for various scenarios. As a consequence of intervention LH gained greater independence and quality of life.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychological RehabilitationSame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207