MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789287447 · doi:10.1080/07434618.2017.1422019

Communication aid provision and use among children and adolescents developing aided communication: an international survey

2018· article· en· W2789287447 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen von Tetzchner, Kaisa Launonen, Beata Batorowicz, Leila Regina d’Oliveira de Paula Nunes, Cátia Crivelenti de Figueiredo Walter, Judith Oxley, Munique Massaro, Kristine Stadskleiv, Chih-Kang Yang, Débora Deliberato

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversitetet i Oslo
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental requirement of a supportive language development for young children who need aided communication is that an aided communication system is made available and its use is supported. There is limited information about the age at which children are typically provided with a communication aid or about how aided communication is used in everyday situations. Using questionnaire-based interview data, this study investigated (a) the pattern of provision of communication aids to 84 children and adolescents, (b) parents' and professionals' evaluation of the quality of communication across contexts, and (c) availability and use of aided communication in these contexts. The age at which the participants received their first aided system varied considerably across the group; however, most were considerably older than the age at which children with typical development usually begin to speak. Parents and professionals rated most everyday situations as good communication situations but reported that the participants did not have their main form of expressive language available in many of these situations, or did not use it much. Parents rated their child's education in relation to aided language positively, but many professionals indicated that they had limited knowledge about the participant's use of aided communication outside of the school environment, or about the parents' attitudes. The study gives insights into the language learning situation of children and adolescents who develop aided communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAugmentative and Alternative CommunicationSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207