A systematic review investigating outcome measures and uptake barriers when children and youth with complex disabilities use eye gaze assistive technology
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
Children with complex disabilities sometimes have difficulty communicating with their parents, caregivers, and teachers. For these children, eye gaze assistive technology can be used to facilitate communication. Eye gaze assistive technology outcomes for children and youth were analyzed in this systematic review. Database and hand-searches yielded 4412 unduplicated results, of which 11 articles were eligible for this review. Outcome measures, as well as environmental and personal factors, were mapped to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. Communication outcomes were most prevalent and co-occurred with outcomes in all reported activities and participation domains. Environmental and personal factors were classified as either facilitators or as barriers in relation to device uptake and success. Although comprehensive professional and caregiver support was the primary facilitator for success, barriers could lead to rejection of the technology even when children were successful using the system.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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