Update From the National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities
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 CommunicationSIG News1 Jun 2001Update From the National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities Lee K. McLean, Beth Mineo, Pat Mirenda, Diane Paul-Brown, Mary Ann Romski, Rose Sevcik and Martha E. Snell Lee K. McLean University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author , Beth Mineo University of Delaware, Wilmington Google Scholar More articles by this author , Pat Mirenda University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC Google Scholar More articles by this author , Diane Paul-Brown ASHA Rockville, MD Google Scholar More articles by this author , Mary Ann Romski Georgia State University Atlanta, GA Google Scholar More articles by this author , Rose Sevcik Georgia State University Atlanta, GA Google Scholar More articles by this author and Martha E. Snell University of Virginia, Charlottesville Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/aac10.2.24 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References ASHA. (2000). Special Interest Division 1, Language Learning and Education Newsletter, 7 (1). Google Scholar Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1995). Educational approaches in preschool: Behavior techniques in a public school setting.In E. Schopler & G. Mesibov (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 331–333). New York: Plenum. Google Scholar Chapman, R., & Miller, J. (1980). Analyzing language and communication in the child.In R. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Nonspeech language and communication: Acquisition and intervention (pp. 159–196). Baltimore: University Park Press. Google Scholar Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S. & Mills, P. E. (1990). Defining language delay in young children by cognitive referencing: Are we saying more than we know?.Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 291–302. Google Scholar Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E. (1992). Stability of the intelligence quotient-language quotient relation: Is discrepancy modeling based on myth?.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97 (2), 131–145. Google Scholar Cole, K. N., & Fey, M. E. (1996). Cognitive referencing in language assessment.In K. N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 143–159). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Cress, C. J. (In press). Expanding children’s early augmented behaviors to support symbolic development.In J. Reichle, D. Beukelman, & J. Light (Eds), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (Vol. 2). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Kangas, K., & Lloyd, L. (1988). Early cognitive skills prerequisites to augmentative and alternative communication use: What are we waiting for?.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 211–221. Google Scholar King, J. (1998). Preliminary survey of speech-language pathologists providing AAC services in health care settings in Nebraska.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 222–227. Google Scholar McCarthy, C., McLean, L., Miller, J., Paul-Brown, D., Romski, M., Rourke, J., & Yoder, D. (1998). Communication supports checklist for programs serving individuals with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar McCathren, R. B. (2000). Teacher-implemented prelinguistic communication intervention.Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15 (1), 21–29. Google Scholar Mineo Mollica, B. (1999). Accessing AT devices and services: A follow-up with Division of Mental Retardation clients. Wilmington, DE: University of Delaware. Google Scholar National Joint Committee for the Communicative Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities. (1992). Guidelines for meeting the communication needs of persons with severe disabilities.Asha, 34 (March, Suppl. 7), 1–8. Google Scholar Notari, A. R., Cole, K. N. & Mills, P. W. (1992). Cognitive referencing: The (non)relationship between theory and application.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(4), 22–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Ogletree, B. T., Sportsman, J. S., VanGiesen, T., & Siegel, E. (2000). Communication-based services for persons with severe disabilities: A survey of speech-language pathologists working in North Carolina residential centers.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 336–346. Google Scholar Rice, M., & Kemper, S. (1984). Child language and cognition. Baltimore: University Park Press. Google Scholar Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Forrest, S. (2001). Assistive technology and augmentative communication in early childhood inclusion.In M. J. Guralnick (Ed), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Secord, W. (1992). The use and abuse of standardized tests with children with special needs.The Clinical Connection, Fall, 19–23. Google Scholar Shane, H. & Bashir, A. (1980). Election criteria for the adoption of an augmentative communication system: Preliminary considerations.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 408–414. LinkGoogle Scholar Simpson, K., Beukelman, D., & Bird, A. (1998). Survey of school speech and language service provision to students with severe communication impairments in Nebraska.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 212–221. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication11:1 (20-25)1 Apr 2002Augmentative and Alternative Communication Considerations for Adults With Significant Cognitive DisabilitiesParis DePaepe, Kathleen Feeley and Lisa A. Wood Volume 10Issue 2June 2001Pages: 24-27 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Jun 1, 2001 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2001 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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