Friendship Quality, Friendship Quantity, and Social Participation in Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury
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
Adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) often report reduced social participation and loss of friends, but little is known about quality of friendship after TBI. Our objective was to characterize social participation, friendship quantity, and friendship quality of adults with TBI and a comparison group of uninjured adults. Participants included 18 adults with moderate to severe TBI and 16 of their informant friends; and 18 uninjured adults and 11 of their informant friends. The main measures used were the Participation Assessment with Recombined Tools-Objective, the Social Network Questionnaire, and the McGill Friendship Questionnaire. Participants with TBI reported significantly less social participation and had fewer total friends, although this difference was not statistically significant. Adults with TBI differed from their friends on one measure of friendship quality, but reports for friendship quality were high in both groups. Adults with TBI reported overall high levels of friendship quality despite having lower levels of social participation compared with uninjured adults. Future research should investigate how the balance of quantity and quality of friendships relates to satisfaction with social participation and overall 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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