Reducing the risk of sexual abuse for people who use augmentative and alternative communication
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
To date little attention has been focused on the sexual abuse experiences of people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and on addressing ways to reduce their risk for this type of abuse. This paper describes the results of a 3-year project that aimed to: (a) learn about the sexual abuse experiences of people who use AAC; (b) provide educational forums and resources on topics relating to sexual abuse for adults who use AAC; (c) define implications in risk reduction for various community service workers who support people who use AAC (e.g., attendant service providers, abuse counselors, sexual health educators, police, victim assistance services, legal professionals, and health care professionals); and (d) make recommendations to parents, educators, service providers, and consumer advocacy organizations about their roles in reducing the risk of abuse for youth and adults who use AAC. The findings suggest that the majority of participants in this project have experienced a range of abuses including sexual abuse, lack information about healthy and abusive relationships, have no way of communicating about sexuality and abuse, and lack supports in their personal lives and from within the community-at-large that are necessary to cope with relationship difficulties and specifically problems associated with abuse and justice system services. These findings and implications are shared with the intent of highlighting the need for more research and attention to the issue of abuse prevention for people who use AAC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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