MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499988771 · doi:10.1080/17489539.2016.1204771

Overview of current approaches for treating word retrieval deficits demonstrates need for focused research questions and appraisal of the methodological quality of evidence

2016· article· en· W2499988771 on OpenAlex
Elizabeth Rochon, Tijana Simić, Bruna Seixas Lima

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPsychologyCritical appraisalQuality of evidenceQuality (philosophy)Applied psychologyMEDLINEMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceEpistemologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review provides a summary and appraisal commentary on the treatment review by Schweng Casarin, F., Branco, L., Pereira, N., Kochhann, R., Gindri, G., & Paz Fonseca, R. (2014). Rehabilitation of lexical and semantic communicative impairments: An overview of available approaches. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 8, 266–277. Sources of funding and disclosures of interest: Several of the authors received a CAPES scholarship for Master’s, PhD, or postdoctoral studies. The authors report no conflicts of interests.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.853
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.245 · 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