MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342815939 · doi:10.3109/07434618.2016.1160150

Children Who Use Communication Aids Instructing Peer and Adult Partners During Play-Based Activity

2016· article· en· W2342815939 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communicationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyInternet privacyCommunicationMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about how children with severe motor impairments who use communication aids provide instructions when given control over interaction. In this study, 35 children - 18 who used communication aids and 17 who used natural speech - were videotaped in play-based activities. Both groups successfully instructed partners to build replications of models the partners could not see. The results demonstrate that children using communication aids can also have an active role in play-based activities using language, but that their experience with activities may be limited and their instructions may take longer to give. The children who used natural speech provided more detailed instructions and were more successful in guiding their partners. Creating opportunities for active participation in play may be important for the development of communicative autonomy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.354 · 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