MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126156955 · doi:10.1684/nrp.2025.0832

The i-MEL fr: A digital tool for assessing all dimensions of communication in adults

2025· article· fr· W7126156955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anaïs Deleuze, Perrine Ferré, Ana Inés Ansaldo, Yves Joanette

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de neuropsychologie · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Digital humanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente le i-MEL fr (Protocole informatisé Montréal d’évaluation du langage, version francophone), une nouvelle batterie d’évaluation informatisée destinée aux orthophonistes francophones pour l’évaluation des troubles acquis de la communication chez l’adulte. Développé au Centre de recherche de l’Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal, cet outil répond au besoin exprimé par les cliniciens de disposer d’une batterie actualisée, validée et normalisée.Le i-MEL fr se compose de 51 tâches réparties en 8 composantes, couvrant les dimensions traditionnelles du langage (e.g. : phonologie, syntaxe) et celles plus contemporaines permettant de décrire les habiletés communicationnelles (e.g. : pragmatique, discours). L’informatisation sur tablette (iPad) offre plusieurs avantages, notamment la standardisation de la présentation des stimuli, l’automatisation de certaines cotations et le calcul des temps de réponse. Une attention particulière a été portée au développement des stimuli visuels et auditifs, avec un contrôle rigoureux de leur validité. L’outil est conçu comme une boîte à outils flexible permettant au clinicien d’adapter son évaluation selon ses hypothèses diagnostiques.Cette publication détaille le construit de l’outil, sa structure, les avantages fournis par son informatisation ainsi que des données de validation et de normalisation, offrant ainsi aux cliniciens un aperçu complet de ce nouvel outil d’évaluation.

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 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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de neuropsychologieSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207