MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7006151201

Study on language comprehension in aphasic subjects

2008· article· en· W7006151201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComprehensionAphasiaTest (biology)Simple (philosophy)Expression (computer science)Spoken language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Aphasia is a disorder which stems from cerebral lesion and impairs both language\nexpression and comprehension. Objective: to investigate language comprehension in aphasic\nindividuals through the comprehension test battery of Montreal Toulouse Test (alpha version).\nStudy Design: A retrospective, descriptive, qualitative-quantitative research involving 60 subjects,\nranging from 40-70 years old. Data crossing including comprehension of: spoken words (SWC),\nwritten words (WWC), spoken simple phrases (SSPC), written simple phrases (WSPC), spoken\ncomplex phrases (SCPC) and written complex phrases (WCPC). Results: the higher the SWC, the\nhigher the WWC; the higher the SSPC and SCPC, the higher the WSPC and WCPC and vice versa;\ncomparing spoken and written comprehension: the higher the WC, the higher the PC; the higher the\nSPC, the higher the CPC and vice-versa; no correlation between age and gender was found.\nConclusion: the comprehension of simple structures benefits the comprehension of complex\nstructures and the difficulty in the comprehension of simple structures associates with the difficulty\nin comprehension of complex structures.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)→Same topicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism→French-language works237,207→