“I'm a Different Coach With Every Family”
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
Early intervention (EI) service providers working with young children with developmental disabilities and delays and their families often utilize coaching practices to engage caregivers in the EI process. Within the literature, the usefulness of coaching has been identified. However, little is known about how coaching practices look in naturalistic settings and service providers' perceptions of these practices. Through the use of an online survey, this study examined beliefs and reported practices of EI service providers. The findings indicated that EI providers considered coaching to be meaningful and offered several benefits to both caregivers and children. Some of the perceived advantages included engaging and empowering caregivers and increased opportunities for children to practice and master skills. Most coaching practices were ranked as highly important and were reportedly utilized frequently by service providers in the sample. However, some coaching practices, such as reflection and feedback, were not implemented as often as joint planning, observation, and action. In addition, the participants identified challenges and facilitators for using coaching as a style of interacting with caregivers. Discussion of EI provider perceptions, limitations, recommendations, implications, and future research directions are presented.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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