Canadian Families’ Decisions of Communication Options* for Children Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: An Initial Exploration
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
Communication is an essential aspect of human interaction and helps connect us to the people around us. The majority of children who are deaf or hard of hearing are born to hearing parents who are likely unfamiliar with hearing loss. These parents are then asked to make critical decisions about communication options for their children. It can be a challenging process but one that needs to be done quickly in order to capture the critical language development period. Little research has explored the factors associated with parents’ decisions about communication options for their children who are deaf or hard of hearing and no studies have been done specifically with Canadian parents. This exploratory survey design study examined the factors which influence Canadian parents’ decisions relative to communication options for their children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Results indicate that parents’ personal judgement and a desire for their child to be able to communicate with their family and be happy in their own unique lives were driving forces behind the decisions that were made. Confirming research conducted in other countries, Canadian parents use a combination of their own judgement, professionals’ opinions, the needs of their child and internal values to make communication option decisions. Implications of these results are discussed as they pertain to parent-professional partnerships and family-centered services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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