Concerns regarding the Application of Restrictive “Eligibility” Policies to Individuals Who Need Communication Services and Supports: A Response by the National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sometimes communication supports and services for school-aged children with extensive disabilities are re-duced over time or removed on the basis of inappropri-ate reasons or eligibility criteria that are flawed. Family members may feel unequipped to argue against the de-cisions that schools or agencies make for their child, and professionals may be in a difficult position to disagree with their administrators. The National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities has written a position statement on these re-strictive eligibility practices. This position statement ad-dresses concerns about inappropriate eligibility criteria and may be used to help individuals, family members, and providers gain access to necessary communication supports and services.
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 | 0.043 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.064 | 0.066 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".