Key considerations when interviewing individuals with expressive language difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research comes with its fair share of challenges; however, those challenges are often amplified when interviewing individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A research project, Friendly Housemates, was conducted where people with intellectual and developmental disabilities were matched with post-secondary students to live together as housemates. Drawing on experience gleaned from interviews conducted for the study and earlier research, recommendations are made for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data from participants who are quiet or have expressive language difficulties. These practices will help to ensure that the voices that are so often relegated to the fringes are brought to the disability research discourse.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.510 | 0.491 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".