MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062271351 · doi:10.1080/07434610902996104

Reliability of Speech Generating Devices: A 5-Year Review

2009· review· en· W2062271351 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy A. Shepherd, Kent A. Campbell, Anne Marie Renzoni, Nahum Sloan

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communicationReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceReliability engineeringKey (lock)Service (business)PsychologyApplied psychologyMultimediaEngineeringBusinessComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) depend on technology to meet their daily needs and form relationships. Speech generating devices (SGDs) are integral components of communication systems. Reliability of SGDs is critical for effective use in everyday life. This study examined the reliability of new SGDs and found that mean time to first failure was 42.7 (SD = 41.2) weeks and at least 40% required repairs within the first year of use. The components that most frequently broke down were touch screens, wiring, main boards, batteries, memory cards, and AC adaptors. The costs of repairing SGDs were analyzed. The clinical implications of device breakdown are identified for key stakeholders, including clients, families, service providers, funding agencies, and manufacturers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAugmentative and Alternative CommunicationSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207