Found Opportunities for Social Participation
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
Lack of communicatively supportive opportunities for social participation is a critical barrier for many people with aphasia. Speech–language pathologists need to address this barrier by playing a key role in ensuring that adults with aphasia have appropriate social participation choices in their communities. Speech–language pathologists may provide these services themselves or may draw on their unique expertise in communication and aphasia to work with people with aphasia, family, friends, other health care professionals, and disability support organizations to advocate for and/or develop opportunities. This article provides examples of specific approaches that can help achieve this important goal in relation to 4 levels of social participation: interacting with others without doing a specific activity with them (e.g., having satisfying conversations), interacting with others during activities in which there is a common goal (e.g., participating in enjoyable recreational activities), interacting with others to help a specific person or group of people (e.g., volunteering), and interacting with others to make a contribution to society (e.g., being involved in an aphasia advocacy organization).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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