Current Practices for Evaluation of Resonance Disorders in North America
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
Improving treatment outcomes for people with resonance problems (due to velopharyngeal disorders) is a priority for many speech-language pathologists (SLPs), but there exists a limited understanding of the practices SLPs are using to assess and monitor therapeutic effects in this population. The current study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What are current clinical practices versus best practices for assessing resonance disorders, tracking therapeutic effects, and determining discharge criteria? (2) What assessment practices would SLPs prefer to use with clients who have resonance disorders? (3) What are barriers to SLPs' use of best practices? and (4) What effects do SLP demographics have on clinical practices? Thirty-eight SLPs, specializing in the treatment of resonance disorders, participated in the study. Responses were compared with best practice recommendations derived from the literature. Most clinicians were using low-tech assessment tools, often because they lacked access to high-tech tools. Demographics and training did not affect clinical assessment practices. There is a need to increase the availability of high-tech assessment tools to SLPs practicing in the area of resonance disorders, as consistent use of sophisticated assessment devices would exemplify contemporary thinking about the transfer of knowledge to practice in this area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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