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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.205
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