Characteristics of assistive technology service delivery models: stakeholder perspectives and preferences
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the key characteristics of an assistive technology service delivery model preferred by the various stakeholders in Manitoba, Canada. METHODS: A descriptive, exploratory approach consistent with qualitative research design was used to explore this issue. Three focus groups were held using a semi-structured interview guide and a hypothetical case study to guide the discussion. Eighteen adults participated in the study, each representing one of three groups of stakeholders (assistive technology service providers, funders and users). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using an inductive process to develop categories and themes. RESULTS: Three primary themes emerged from the data: the user of assistive technology is a unique individual; a decision-making process exists; and, assistive technology devices and services are complex. Based on the study results, recommendations for the delivery of assistive technology services are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may be useful for developing funding guidelines, supporting the importance of assistive technology in enabling meaningful activities, and examining current delivery of services in different contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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