Communication aid provision and use among children and adolescents developing aided communication: an international survey
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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