Resultados preliminares do estudo da compreensão em sujeitos disatricos A preliminary investigation on language assessment outcome in dysarthria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJETIVO: apresentar estudo sobre a compreensão de linguagem em sujeitos disártricos. MÉTODO: estudo retrospectivo, descritivo, de caráter qualitativo e quantitativo com 60 sujeitos com idade entre 40 a 70 anos. Foi realizado o cruzamento das tarefas de compreensão do protocolo Montreal Toulouse (versão alfa): compreensão de palavras orais (CPO) e escritas (CPE); frases simples orais (CFSO) e escritas(CFSE); frases complexas orais (CFCO) e escritas (CFCE). RESULTADOS: com respeito à comparação entre a compreensão oral e a escrita, quanto maior a CPO maior a CPE; quanto maior a CFSO, maior CFSE e vice-versa; relativamente à compreensão oral e escrita, quanto maior a CP, maior CF; quanto maior a CFS, maior CFC e vice-versa; em relação à comparação de idade, gênero, e CFCO e CFCE, não se observa relações significativas. CONCLUSÃO: nos pacientes deste estudo, verificou-se que a compreensão das estruturas mais simples favorece a compreensão das mais complexas; a dificuldade de compreensão de estruturas simples apresenta relação direta com a dificuldade de compreensão de estruturas complexas.<br>PURPOSE: to study language comprehension in dysarthric subjects. METHOD: a retrospective, descriptive and qualitative-quantitative study involving 60 subjects, age ranging from 40-70 years. Data crossing was carried out including sub-tests of comprehension related to: spoken words (SWC), written words (WWC), spoken simple phrases (SSPC), written simple phrases (WSPC), spoken complex phrases (SCPC) and written complex phrases (WCPC). RESULTS: the higher the SWC, the higher the WWC; the higher the SSPC, the higher the WSPC, and vice-versa; the higher the WC, the higher the PC; the higher the SPC, the higher the CPC, and vice-versa. No associations with age, gender, SCPC and WCPC were observed. CONCLUSION: both comprehension and difficulty in comprehension are associated with the degree of complexity of linguistic structure.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".