MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111089177 · doi:10.1080/07434610500468498

AAC and community partnerships: The participation path to community inclusion

2006· article· en· W2111089177 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communicationGeneral partnershipInclusion (mineral)Quality of life (healthcare)AugmentativeCommunity participationService delivery frameworkPsychologyDramaCommunity organizationPublic relationsMedical educationNursingService (business)MedicineSociologyBusinessPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Life Needs Model (LNM) of service delivery emphasizes the importance of community participation in children's development and quality of life. This article is a case illustration of two community partnership programs based on the LNM. StoryTime and Dress Up and Drama provide participation opportunities in the community for children who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). The authors describe the development and implementation of both programs. Regardless of level of functioning, each child who participated in the programs did so by communicating, interacting socially, and controlling the environment. Multiple benefits for children, parents/caregivers, community partners, and AAC clinicians are highlighted. The authors hope that this article will assist others in developing partnerships and implementing inclusive practices within their communities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.273 · 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