Issues in the Evaluation of Infants and Young Children Who Are Suspected of or Who Are Deaf-Blind
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
Young children who are deaf-blind have unique communication, developmental, emotional, and educational needs that require special knowledge, expertise, technology, and assistance far beyond that required by other children with disabilities. The etiology of deaf-blindness is often multifactorial, with the most common causes being genetic and chromosomal syndromes, congenital infections, prenatal and postnatal environmental exposures, and postnatal trauma or diseases. Early identification is key, and begins with understanding the factors in medical and family histories that predispose a child to deaf-blindness. Assessment requires the skills of a team of clinicians. Coordinated early identification and intervention can ensure that the child who is deaf-blind receives the support needed to learn to communicate effectively with others and to develop conceptual skills necessary to support future learning. This article focuses on the evaluation of infants and young children who are suspected of being deaf-blind or who have already been determined to have this dual sensory impairment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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