MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041011831 · doi:10.2511/rpsd.28.2.70

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

2003· article· en· W2041011831 on OpenAlexaff
Martha E. Snell, Kevin Caves, Lee McLean, Beth Mineo Mollica, Pat Mirenda, Diane Paul‐Brown, Mary Ann Romski, Jane Davis Rourk, Rose A. Sevcik, David E. Yoder

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementStatement (logic)Position (finance)Joint (building)PsychologySpecial needsPublic relationsMedical educationBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineFamily medicineLawEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.317 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207