The opinions of the adult deaf community towards methods of communication in the education of deaf children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to survey the adult Deaf and document their viewpoints on appropriate methods of communication for deaf children. A review of the literature revealed that different methods were being used in the education of the Deaf. Sign language is one of the methods that is presently being used as a means for instruction. However, it is noted that the sign language utilized by the Deaf within the Deaf community is different from signs being used in the classroom. Furthermore, input from the Deaf community is not a factor in determining how signs are to be incorporated into the framework of our educational system. These findings gave directions for a survey of the Deaf community. A questionnaire was designed, pilot-tested, and then administered to 162 Deaf adults in the Greater Vancouver metropolitan area. The questions were concerned with viewpoints on sign language and its role in the development of a deaf child's communication. Special attention was given to the comparative roles of Deaf signs and English signs. Data analysis revealed the overall expectations of the Deaf community of deaf children's methods of communication. The consensus of the Deaf was that sign language should be learned at an early age and before speech; language should be acquired bilingually with Deaf signs and English signs forming the basis of the two languages; and deaf children should be able to obtain a bilingual education and have the opportunity to be able to converse in either language with teachers of the Deaf. Finally, members of the Deaf community should be involved in the formulation and implementation of policies in education of the Deaf.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".