Social-legal knowledge in adults with and without traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterise social-legal knowledge in adults with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHOD: Participants, 19 adults with TBI and 21 uninjured comparison peers, completed a social-legal knowledge interview to discuss their understanding of laws and legal systems. We used grounded theory to define thematic content within participants' self-reported knowledge. RESULTS: Social-legal knowledge in both groups comprised five thematic categories. Three categories (normative rules, legal procedures, and structural characteristics) described the legal system itself, whereas two categories (personal anecdotes and uncertainty) described the participants' relationship to the law. Participants' social-legal knowledge was often technical and complex, defining a clear 'arrest-trial-jail' schema and well-defined roles for legal actors; however, participants often struggled to expand knowledge or to answer follow-up questions, and participants tended to frame the structural characteristics and their personal anecdotes negatively. Post-hoc analysis of total coded items showed no between-group differences in any of the five thematic categories. CONCLUSION: Adults with moderate-to-severe TBI articulated complex, albeit superficial, social-legal knowledge, with no thematic differences to the knowledge of adults without TBI. The results identify key thematic content areas that comprise social-legal knowledge in adults with and without TBI and highlight areas of relative strength and relative weakness within lay persons' internal understanding of laws and legal systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".