Le Langage Oral à L’Examen Clinique du Bilingual Aphasia Test (Bat) Chez des Patients Post Traumatiques. L’Expérience Ivoirienne Chez l’Enfant et Chez l’Adulte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser les troubles du langage chez l’aphasique bilingue. L’etude se deroule au CHU de Yopougon avec deux malades victimes d’AVC et internes pour une reeducation du langage. Pour des raisons pratiques, l’evaluation et la reeducation des deux patients sont faites dans les langues baoule et francais. Apres entretiens et observations et sur la base d’un examen a la fois comparatif et experimental, nous avons formule une hypothese qui traduit un lien entre d’une part, des facteurs psychologiques chez le patient et la recuperation du langage et d’autre part, des facteurs socioculturels intervenant dans la qualite de reconstruction du langage. Les resultats de l’etude montrent que les langues parlees (langue maternelle et langue seconde) ne sont pas recuperees de la meme facon chez les aphasiques bilingues tout comme l’est le temps de recuperation du langage qui varie selon l’âge des sujets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".