Literacy Outcomes in Deaf Students with Cochlear Implants: Current State of the Knowledge
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
The purpose of this paper is to examine the available peer-reviewed research regarding literacy achievement in deaf children with cochlear implants. A related goal is to identify gaps in the empirical literature and suggest directions for future research. Included in this review are studies that exclusively report reading and writing outcomes for groups of students. A total of 21 studies were identified, representing those published over approximately a 20-year time period (1997-2016) and collectively reporting the literacy outcomes for over 1,000 cochlear implant users. Overall findings of the studies of reading comprehension suggest that the majority of participants achieved scores in the average range, although a wide-range of variability was reported. Only 3 studies of writing were available for review, with 2 reporting lower achievement in this area as compared to reading. Factors impacting outcomes achieved such as age at implantation, presence of additional disabilities, consistency of device use, and communication modality are explored and summarized.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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