MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151235627 · doi:10.3109/07434618.2015.1062553

Language Development of Individuals Who Require Aided Communication: Reflections on State of the Science and Future Research Directions

2015· review· en· W2151235627 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModalitiesAugmentative and alternative communicationPsychologyLanguage acquisitionSpoken languageMechanism (biology)Language developmentIntervention (counseling)Language understandingLinguisticsCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologySociologyMathematics educationEpistemologyNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language acquisition theories differ in the importance they assign to production as a learning mechanism. This review summarizes some of the theoretical issues linked to this debate and considers their implications for children with severe speech and physical impairments. The unique aspects of the language-learning contexts of these children are explored. Drawing largely on papers published within the journal Augmentative and Alternative Communication, this review summarizes features of language development that have been described over the past 3 decades and considers how these findings might illuminate our understanding of language development across both spoken and aided modalities. Implications for assessment, intervention and for further research are suggested.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.464
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.156 · 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