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 OpenAlexafffund
Beata Batorowicz, Fiona Campbell, Stephen von Tetzchner, Gillian King, Cheryl Missiuna

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAugmentative and Alternative CommunicationSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207