Decolonizing Speech-Language Pathology Practice in Acquired Neurogenic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples throughout the world, despite being known to suffer from increased risk of stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI), are marginalised in terms of access to rehabilitation services and have poorer health outcomes than non-indigenous peoples. Speech-language pathology services for indigenous people with aphasia have rarely been discussed in either clinical or research fora in this field, with few guidelines available for clinicians when working with indigenous clients, families, and communities. Exploiting the broad input gathered through the collective problem-solving of a focus group, the paper integrates the input of a group of practitioners and researchers at an international roundtable held in 2016 to generate a “declaration” of issues that need to be addressed regarding aphasia services for indigenous clients with aphasia. The paper aims to promote a transformative approach to service delivery that is driven by decolonizing attitudes and practices, and acknowledges historical, sociopolitical, linguistic, and family contexts as a framework for understanding indigenous clients with aphasia.
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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".