MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117430555 · doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.940464

Social Participation of School-aged Children Who Use Communication Aids: The Views of Children and Parents

2014· article· en· W2117430555 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychologyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologySocial communicationContent analysisSocial psychologyQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social participation is crucial for children's development and well-being; however, little is known about the social participation of children who use communication aids. This article presents findings from interviews with eight 5- to 14-year-old children who used communication aids and their parents about social participation, communicative interactions, and peer relationships. Video- and audio-recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis, and five themes were identified. Two themes reflect parents' views: Communication partners and strategies and Access to aided communication. Three themes reflect perceptions expressed both by children and parents: Participation in society, Interaction opportunities, and Social relationships. The findings provide insights into both the achievements and the challenges experienced by young people who use aided communication.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.325 · 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