Specificities of Communication in Children with Intellectual Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this work is to study the characteristics of communication in children with intellectual disabilities. Background: The study of the specificities of communication in children with intellectual disabilities has become more and more relevant in the past few years. Method: The methodological basis of this study was the combination of various theoretical methods of cognition. Results: In the process of writing this work, the author studied the techniques of verbal and non-verbal communication. The works of Russian and foreign authors, as well as methods of improving communication in children with intellectual disabilities, were considered. It was found that the impact of intellectual disabilities with mild mental retardation on the cognitive, behavioural and emotional-personal spheres of the communicative process naturally entails the emergence of serious difficulties in establishing contacts with people around, and therefore in the process of social adaptation of the child in general. Conclusion: The practical significance of this work lies in the study of the characteristics of communication in children with intellectual disabilities, which will be useful for psychologists, teachers and medical workers. The study and research of this topic will provide further opportunities for the development of a program of psychological influence to optimise communication for children with intellectual disabilities and their adaptation in society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".