Factors Contributing to Parents' Selection of a Communication Mode to Use With Their Deaf Children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines factors contributing to parents' selection of a communication mode to use with their children with hearing loss. More than 90% of children with prelingual hearing loss have normally hearing parents. Communication difficulties are among the obstacles facing these parents in connection with these children's development. Controversy over manual and aural/oral methods of communication creates further complications. Case studies of two families with deaf children were conducted to identify factors that could influence parents' selection of a communication method. Semistructured questionnaires and unstructured interviews were used in data collection. A qualitative approach was used in data analysis. Based on the results, the factors influencing parental choice were grouped under four themes: (a) the influence of information provided to parents, (b) parents' perceptions of assistive technology, (c) attitudes of service professionals and educational authorities, and (d) quality and availability of support services. Implications of these themes for service provision are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it