Counseling and Disorders of Fluency: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Fluency and Fluency DisordersArticle1 Dec 2003Counseling and Disorders of Fluency: An Overview Charlene M. Bloom and Donna K. Cooperman Charlene M. Bloom The College of Saint RoseAlbany, NY Google Scholar More articles by this author and Donna K. Cooperman The College of Saint RoseAlbany, NY Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/ffd13.2.2 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Andrews, J., & Andrews, M. (2003). Family based treatment in communication disorders: A systemic approach.: Sandwich, IL: Janelle. Google Scholar ASHA. (1997). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology.: Rockville, MD: Author. Google Scholar ASHA. (2001). Scope of practice, speech-language pathology. Rockville, MD: Author. Google Scholar ASHA. (2003). Code of ethics (revised)..ASHA Supplement, 23, pp. 13-15. Google Scholar Bloom, C. M., & Cooperman, D. K. (1992). The clinical interview: A guide for speech-language pathologists and audiologists (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: National Student Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Google Scholar Bloom, C. M., & Cooperman, D. K. (1999). Synergistic stuttering therapy: A holistic approach.: Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar Corey, G. (2001). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy.: Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Th-ompson Learning. Google Scholar Crowe, T. (1997). Applications of counseling in speech-language pathology and audiology.: Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Google Scholar Hepworth, D., & Larsen, J. (1986). Direct social work practice.: Chicago: Dorsey Press. Google Scholar Ivy, A. (1994). Intentional interviewing and counseling (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar Kottler, J. A. (1986). On being a therapist.: San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Google Scholar Luterman, D. (2001). Counseling persons with communication disorders and their families.: Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Google Scholar Manning, W. (2001). Clinical decision making in fluency disorders (2nd ed.). Vancouver, Canada: Singular Publishing. Google Scholar Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In.W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change (pp. 3-27). New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a per son.: Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being.: Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar Schuerle, J. ((1992). Counseling in speech-language pathology and audiology.: New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 13Issue 2December 2003Pages: 2-7 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Dec 1, 2003 Metrics Downloaded 76 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2003 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".