MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965844489 · doi:10.1191/0265659003ct250oa

Using augmentative and alternative communication approaches to promote participation of preschoolers during book reading: a pilot study

2003· article· en· W1965844489 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

VenueChild Language Teaching and Therapy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt Joseph's Health CentreSt Joseph's Health CareDalhousie UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communicationReading (process)Nonverbal communicationPsychologyLiteracyDevelopmental psychologyEmergent literacyTypically developingAugmentativePedagogyLinguisticsAutism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literacy development is important, especially for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Early exposure to reading and writing through joint book reading is important in this development. This article describes a project examining the impact of an interactive book reading programme on four preschool-aged children and their mothers. Two of the children were typically developing and two relied on nonverbal communication means. The program used AAC techniques and adaptations to promote the participation of all children. The children's participation was examined in the group and during book reading in the home before and after the group programme.

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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.209 · 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