MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012601898 · doi:10.1353/aad.2004.0014

Editorial: The Future of Education of Deaf Children: Implications of Population Projections

2004· editorial· en· W2012601898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald F. Moores

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican annals of the deaf · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusPopulationDemographyPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EditorialThe Future of Education of Deaf Children: Implications of Population Projections Donald F. Moores The winter 2004 edition of the American Annals of the Deaf carried an article by Trevor Johnston titled "W(h)ither the Deaf Community? Population, Genetics, and the Future of Australian Sign Language." In his analysis of trends involving school enrollment, neonatal screening, and census data in Australia, Johnston concluded that the incidence of severe and profound childhood deafness has been less than traditionally assumed and currently is declining to even lower levels. Many of the issues Johnston raised have been discussed by other authors, but this is the first case to my knowledge where they have been discussed succinctly in a brief article. Starting with a generally accepted assumption in many countries that early childhood deafness occurs in approximately 1 child per 1,000, Johnston reported that most studies have included children with losses ranging from mild to profound, with the majority of cases falling into the mild and moderate categories. For example, he cited the Colorado screening program, which reported that 2.5 children per 1,000 were identified as having a hearing loss, but that only 10% of these children, or 0.25 per 1,000, had a profound loss. Research from Great Britain has reported similar results and Johnston concluded from data in New South Wales that an upper limit of 0.7 per 1,000 would not be surprising for Australia. Johnston attributed the apparent decline to a number of factors, chief of which has been improvements in medical care, with the most striking example being the development of a vaccine to control rubella. The last worldwide rubella epidemic occurred in the mid-1960s. Since then there has been a decline in early childhood deafness caused by nongenetic factors. Other contributors to the decline include cochlear implantation, improved hearing aids, and, looming on the horizon, genetic screening and gene therapy. Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, a number of possibilities have arisen, along with serious moral issues. Most readers probably are familiar with the connexin 26 gene, which apparently accounts for roughly 50% of all heritable deafness. As Johnston reported, the gene can be identified through screening and so parents-to-be can make reproductive decisions based on that information. In fact, in vitro fertilization has been performed so that only a fertilized egg not carrying the connexin 26 gene would be selected and implanted. Johnston concluded that these developments have serious implications for education and for the Australian Deaf community as well as for Australian sign language (Auslan). He reported that many, if not most, young deaf children in the bigger cities in Australia now have [End Page 3] implants and few young deaf children are in sign-based or sign bilingual programs. This has implications for maintaining a minimal linguistic community. A continuing decline in sign-based instruction will lead to smaller numbers of individuals entering the adult deaf community, which already may be in decline. The single largest element of the Deaf community currently is the group between 35 and 45 years of age, illustrating the impact of the last great rubella epidemic. I do not have the background to speak to Johnston's conclusions about the possible fate of Auslan. Given the much larger size of the American population in general and the American deaf population in particular, I do not believe that American Sign Language faces any such danger. However, the population and educational trends in the United States, Canada, and many European countries seem to be similar to those in Australia. I have noted elsewhere that the number of children in programs for deaf and hard of hearing children in the United States has remained constant around 50,000, or even declined, over a 40-year period despite an increase in the general population of 100,000,000. Given a general school age population of roughly 50,000,000, this may seem to fit into the old formula of 1 deaf child per 1,000, but the fact is that now fewer than half of these children have profound hearing losses and the numbers of children who are classified as having mild...

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican annals of the deafSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207