Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Administration and SupervisionArticle1 Oct 2006EthicsManaging Conflict Through Collaboration Mary Pat McCarthy, Mary Pat McCarthy and Christine Gooding Mary Pat McCarthy Google Scholar More articles by this author , Mary Pat McCarthy Clarion University of PAClarion, PA Google Scholar More articles by this author and Christine Gooding Clarion University of PAClarion, PA Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/aas16.3.7 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References ASHA. (2002). Responding to the changing needs of speech-language pathology and audiology students in the 21st century., from Retrieved July 1, 2006, from www.asha.org/about/credentialing/changing.htm Google Scholar Brumley, C., & Lubinski, R. (2001). Conflict resolution in the workplace.In R. Lubinski & C. Frattali (Eds.), Professional issues in speech-language pathology and audiology (2nd ed.). Canada: Thomson Delmar. Google Scholar Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change, patterns, principals and potholes.: Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar Johnson, B. (1996). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems.: Amherst: Human Resource Development Press. Google Scholar Lax, D., & Sabenius, J. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain.: New York: Free Press. Google Scholar Schwarz, R. (1994). The skilled facilitator, practical wisdom for developing effective groups.: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change. New York: Doubleday. Google Scholar Yarbrough, E., & Wilmot, W. (1995). Artful mediation: Constructive conflict at work. Boulder, CO: Cairns Publishing. Google Scholar Additional Readings ASHA. (1991). A model for collaborative service delivery for students with language learning disorders in public schools.Asha, 33(5), 44–50. Google Scholar Chermak, G. (1993). Dynamics of collaborative consultation with families.American Journal of Audiology, 1, 38–42. Google Scholar Doran, M.C., Solomon, B.S.W., & Brasseur, J.A. (1997, May). Partners in professional preparation: Collaboration between universities and off-site settings.ASHA Division 11, Administration and Supervision Newsletter, 17–21. Google Scholar Hadley, P, Simmerman, A.Long, M., & Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating language development for inner-city children: Experimental evaluation of a collaborative, classroom based intervention..Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 3(31), 280–295. Google Scholar King, D. (1996, April). Collaborative-consultative model for training students in a public school practicum.ASHA Division 11, Administration and Supervision Newsletter, 5–7. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 16Issue 3October 2006Pages: 7-9 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Oct 1, 2006 Metrics Downloaded 33 times Topicsasha-topicsleader-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2006 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.380 | 0.171 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".