A graphic symbol tool for the evaluation of communication, satisfaction and priorities of individuals with intellectual disability who use a speech generating device
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
This article reports on the views of individuals with learning disability (LD) on their use of their speech generating devices (SGDs), their satisfaction about their communication, and their priorities. The development of an interview tool made of graphic symbols and entitled Communication, Satisfaction and Priorities of SGD Users (CSPU) is described in detail. The tool was used to support comprehension and to elicit the opinions of eight individuals with LD who had severe communication disorders. Most participants reported that they did not use their SGDs in situations in which they needed them in order to communicate effectively. The participants’ parents corroborated these statements but they identified priorities that were different from their child’s. The results emphasize the necessity of permitting individuals with severe communication disorders to take part in decision-making by indicating their satisfaction and priorities for intervention. Methodological issues and future use of the evaluation tool in research and in clinical settings 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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