MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234140456 · doi:10.1017/s1355617721000965

Final Program Addendum 2020 Virtual Event International Neuropsychological Society July 1-2, 2020

2020· article· en· W4234140456 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité LavalCanadian Sleep & Circadian Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddendumNeuropsychologyEvent (particle physics)Action (physics)Content (measure theory)Computer sciencePsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryCognitionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking the Test: Experiences of first-time neuropsychological testtakers in South Africa. Objective: Demand for neuropsychological (NP) testing with culturally/linguistically diverse individuals, including those with limited or no standardized NP testing experience and living in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), is increasing. Because no research has examined the experience of undergoing NP testing in any population and how it could affect NP test performance, this qualitative study interviewed Xhosaspeaking South Africans about their first experience taking NP tests. Participants and Methods: A guided, semi-structured interview covering the causes of cognitive problems and five domains of the NP testing experience (patterns of abilities, cultural values, familiarity, language, and education) was used. Twenty-two (15 HIV+, 7 HIV-) South Africans (Age M (SD) -33.50 (5.88); % Male-32%) were interviewed. Interviews underwent text review and thematic analysis. Results: Eleven interviewees (50%) thought NP testing was to "check" or "look into" the brain; six (27%) thought it was to assess specific abilities (e.g. memory). Ten (45%) reported feeling nervous due to uncertainty about testing or appearing "dumb". Eleven (50%) and fifteen (68%) described being unbothered by stopping mid-task and not receiving feedback on performance, respectively. Seven (32%) reported performing tasks quickly and accurately to be contradictory. Among causes of cognitive problems, stress (n=5, 23%), excessive worry (n=4, 18%), old age (n=2, 9%), depression (n=1, 5%), and witchcraft (n=1, 5%) were the most commonly reported. Conclusions: There may be limited understanding of the purpose of NP testing, as well as anxiety provoking situations during testing in this sample. Furthermore, there may be limited knowledge of what causes cognitive problems. In LMICs, such as South Africa, neuropsychologists should evaluate an examinee's understanding of NP testing to help foster optimal testing conditions, and may need to provide education on the causes of cognitive problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.291 · 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