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
No AccessPerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative CommunicationArticle1 Sep 2005Communication and Active Participation (Caregiver) Issues Julie Scherz Julie Scherz Wichita State UniversityWichita, KS Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/aac14.3.20 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In "Communication and Active Participation (Caregiver) Issues." Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14(3), pp. 20–21 Resources Beukelman, D. R., Yorkston, K. M., & Reichle, J. (Eds.) (2000). Augmentative and alternative communication for adults with acquired neurologic disorders.: Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Google Scholar Blackstone, S. W., & Hunt Berg, M. (2003). Social networks: A communication inventory for individuals with complex communication needs and their communication partners.: Monterey, CA: Augmentative Communication. Google Scholar Kagan, A., & Winckel, J. (1996). Picto-graphic communication resources (Manual). Toronto, Canada: The Aphasia Centre–North York. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 14Issue 3September 2005Pages: 20-21 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Sep 1, 2005 Metrics Topicsasha-sigsasha-topicsleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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