It's Not About the Technology, or Is It? Realizing AAC Through Hard and Soft Technologies
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
Abstract To many people, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) implementation is synonymous with technologies of various types. For many others, technology is but one, sometimes small, piece of the implementation puzzle. So, is AAC about the technology or not? This paper presents a broad picture of technology as consisting of both hard and soft technologies. The article supports both types of technology as necessary for successful AAC implementation. For many individuals, hard technologies are necessary to support expressive communication. High-tech hard technologies have many options, but only a few fundamental principles, with truly unique new characteristics rarely being introduced. What does change, however, is the platform upon which the AAC devices are built. Originally, AAC devices were based on simple electronic circuits, then specialized computers, and, finally, general computers. Most recently, smart phones and pad computers have been used as the platform for AAC device functions. In this paper, I contend that it is not the technology that is critical; rather, it is our ability to take advantage of that technology for the benefit of people with complex communication needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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