MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160255657 · doi:10.1177/15257401070280030701

Toward a Discussion of Issues Associated With Speech—Language Pathologists' Dismissal Practices in Public School Settings

2007· article· en· W2160255657 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Steppling, Patricia D. Quattlebaum, Debbie E. Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Disorders Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDismissalAshaPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedical educationFoundation (evidence)Set (abstract data type)PedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guidelines for dismissal of a student who has been receiving educational interventions are available from both the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Ad Hoc Committee on Admission/Discharge Criteria and from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Yet as speech—language pathologists (SLPs) in the schools enroll students and subsequently make decisions about the students' dismissal, many questions remain, especially in regard to children having persistent communication difficulties. A thorough review of the decision-making process for dismissal is one aspect of SLPs' training and serves as the foundation for decisions about when intervention should end. IDEA guidelines differ in many respects from the guidelines set forth by ASHA.There is no research that clarifies how these differing guidelines are reconciled when SLPs begin working in the schools, but the authors have anecdotal information from their experiences and from colleagues in South Carolina. An introduction to some of the other factors that may affect dismissal decisions is included. Current practice patterns and considerations for the future of speech—language services in the schools are discussed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0330.030
Scholarly communication0.0230.019
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0220.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication Disorders QuarterlySame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207