Implementing AAC with children with profound and multiple learning disabilities: a study in rationale underpinning intervention
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
There is a developing research base to support the rationale underpinning augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for people with learning disabilities. However, there is a paucity of research examining the process involved in implementing AAC support for people who have profound disabilities. This paper seeks to explore the processes involved in planning and implementing AAC systems to support the communication of two 6 year olds with profound and multiple learning disabilities. Following assessment, a plan of intervention involving specific implementation of objects of reference, gestures and signs was implemented to enhance communication opportunities for both children. Both children improved their communication skills through use of specific AAC supports. Results suggest that important aspects to include when planning intervention are understanding the level of each child's cognition in relation to their receptive abilities and a consistent, collaborative approach where strategies are agreed between team members. Specific challenges are discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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