MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964946912 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enz027

The Transition to School Among Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Children: Teacher and Parent Perspectives

2019· article· en· W2964946912 on OpenAlexaff
Anat Zaidman‐Zait, Brenda T. Poon, Deirdre Curle, Janet R. Jamieson, Nancy Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilestonePsychologyTransition (genetics)Developmental psychologySet (abstract data type)Intervention (counseling)Inclusion (mineral)Medical educationSocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although entry into the school system is a major milestone in the lives of young d/Deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) children and their families, relatively little is known about parents' and teachers' experiences and perspectives of this important transition. The aims of this study were to describe parents' concerns during their children's transition from early intervention to school, to describe practices available for families of DHH children, and to explore parents' and teachers' perspectives regarding practices that support a smooth transition to school. Parents (N = 40) and teachers (N = 37) of the deaf and hard of hearing completed surveys examining their experiences and perspectives on DHH children's transition to school. Among concerns expressed among parents was their child's ability to participate successfully in an inclusive school setting, as well as the level of supports their child would receive. Teachers reported numerous policies and practices that supported the transition to school, emphasizing high-intensity practices often used to gather information about the child and set accommodations in place. Parent and teacher reports on facilitators for the transition are compared and contrasted. Recommendations for research and practice are provided.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207