MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149682508 · doi:10.3109/07434618.2010.546809

Teamwork in AAC: Examining Clinical Perceptions

2011· article· en· W2149682508 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's CentreMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communicationTeamworkPerceptionQuality (philosophy)PsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines Prescription Review (PR), a model of teamwork practiced in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) centres in Ontario, Canada. PR is a process in which teams make decisions about AAC system recommendations. For this study, 92 out of 141 professionals working on AAC teams completed questionnaires measuring the benefits of PR. Findings suggest that PR is beneficial in the areas of learning, providing quality services, team support, and decision making. Participants reported satisfaction with the quality of treatment plan, the PR results, and process. Perceptions of PR were related to size of the teams, participants' years of experience, and the range of experience on teams. This study supports PR and highlights the importance of healthy working relationships.

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)0.000
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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.589
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.012 · 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