Cognitive evaluation and rehabilitation in high‐ and low‐income countries
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
Starting from her own personal experience, in the First Part of the article, the author reconstructs how the specialized sectors of cognitive evaluation and rehabilitation evolved in Western countries (Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia, in particular) during the second half of the last century and the first decades of this century. In the Second Part, she describes her personal experience in setting up a rehabilitation centre dedicated to traumatic brain-injured subjects and her commitment to international cooperation (Bolivia, Rwanda, Myanmar, Tanzania) in the field of cognitive evaluation and rehabilitation in favour of people with congenital and acquired cerebral pathology, especially in the paediatric age, since there is an almost total lack of diagnostic, but above all, rehabilitative procedures for cognitive functions in low-middle income countries. In the Third Part of the article, the author carries out an extensive review of the international literature on the differences in access to cognitive diagnostic evaluation and cognitive rehabilitation in middle- and low-income countries - but not only - underlining the urgent need to launch a major international collaborative effort to reduce and eliminate these discrepancies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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