MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527942023 · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12145

A Bioecological framework to evaluate communicative participation outcomes for preschoolers receiving speech–language therapy interventions in Ontario, Canada

2015· article· en· W1527942023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Jane Cunningham, Peter Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Language developmentDevelopmental psychologyPopulationCommunication disorderService delivery frameworkService (business)Language disorderMedicinePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Preschool Speech and Language Program (PSLP) in Ontario, Canada, is a publically funded intervention service for children from birth to 5 years with communication disorders. It has begun a population-level programme evaluation of children's communicative participation outcomes following therapy. Data are currently being collected for all children who access this service--over 50,000 children each year. AIMS: To understand and evaluate how therapeutic interventions in speech-language therapy impact the everyday lives of children and families by applying a theoretical framework. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: This discussion paper critically examines how the Bioecological Model of Development can be applied to the study of communicative participation outcomes following speech and language therapy. This model will be used in future analyses of communicative participation outcomes data in Ontario's PSLP. The strengths and challenges of this approach are reviewed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Language & Communication DisordersSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207