Viewing couples living with aphasia as adult learners: Implications for promoting quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current interventions for addressing the psychosocial consequences of aphasia have been based on professionally driven constructs as opposed to insider accounts of aphasia. An adult learning approach offers the possibility of developing a programme for individuals with aphasia and their families that involves a more holistic and person-centred approach. This approach offers insights about promoting the quality of life of couples living with aphasia. Aims: The primary objective of this paper is to discuss the implications of adopting an adult learning approach in promoting the quality of life of couples living with chronic aphasia. This paper outlines current interventions for addressing the psychosocial consequences of aphasia. It describes an innovative approach of working with couples with aphasia that explicitly integrates adult education principles and strategies. The basic assumption of this approach is that learning begins with the learner, as opposed to the therapist or treatment plan. Main Contribution: The main contribution of this paper is to outline an alternative approach to intervention that is based on an adult learning model. This approach suggests that improving quality of life for couples living with aphasia involves more than simply promoting increased participation in conversation. Placing the learner in the central role results in intervetion goals that encompass emotional and marital issues, as well as communication. Conclusions: The implications of the adult learning approach on promoting quality of life in the area of emotions, marital issues, and communication outcomes are discussed. Implications of this approach on the role of the speech-language pathologist are also examined. Address correspondence to: Riva Sorin-Peters, 190 Winding Lane, Thornhill, Ontario, L4J 5J2, Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".