Speech-language pathology and ethical practice in global contexts
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
Given the growing professional interest of speech-language pathologists (SLP) in global development work and the opportunities for minority world health providers to use their skills internationally, conversations about what SLPs do when working in majority world settings, and how they do it are imperative. This paper presents case studies of speech-language pathology work in global settings examined within the context of ethical frameworks developed by: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Speech-Language and Audiology Canada, and Speech Pathology Australia. These case studies drawn from personal experiences working as SLPs in majority world contexts are used to discuss the following issues: (1) the need for honest and reflective conversations about SLPs' motivations for engagement in global work; (2) the need to consider how funds are used to have the biggest and most sustainable impact on emerging professional contexts; (3) the necessity of long-term mutually beneficial global partnerships; (4) critical examination of culturally appropriate speech-language pathology services and recommendations; (5) learning to listen to majority world colleagues; (6) creating opportunities for majority world colleagues to represent themselves at conferences, meetings and in the literature, and; (7) the crucial role university staff play in fostering ethical and sustainable speech-language pathology practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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