MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964804033 · doi:10.1080/07434610212331281271

Grammatical issues in graphic symbol communication

2002· article· en· W1964804033 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbol (formal)Augmentative and alternative communicationComputer scienceCommunicationGraphic communicationLinguisticsNatural language processingPsychologyMultimediaGraphic designProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, issues and concepts related to the study of production, comprehension, and acquisition of syntax and morphology by children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are reviewed. The use of graphic symbols when vocal speech is severely limited presents significant challenges to the typical process of language acquisition. A conceptual and theoretical context is presented, and concerns that seem unique to AAC are explored. Productive lines of research are proposed to address language acquisition issues and to improve AAC system designs and intervention programs for language development in children who require AAC.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.303 · 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