Team Consensus Concerning Important Outcomes for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Assistive Technologies: A Pilot Study
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
Obstacles to assistive device outcome measurement include a lack of consensus about which outcomes should be evaluated. This article reports a case study of the use of a structured consensus-building approach called Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) to develop agreement among key professional team members with regard to outcome measurement. We also describe the changes in key professional team members' perspectives on outcome measurement over time. Initially, participants expressed preferences for the measurement of about 33 different outcomes. Subsequent discussions and the TRIAGE process led to the choice of the five most important outcomes. Our case study provides evidence that professional team consensus could successfully be reached through the individual reflections and group sharing proposed by the TRIAGE technique. Future research directions include the development of strategies to give prominence to the opinions of individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the identification of important outcomes, and for aggregating and interpreting data gathered at local, regional, or national levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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