Communicative Participation in Dysarthria: Perspectives for Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicative participation is restricted in many conditions associated with dysarthria. This position paper defines and describes the construct of communicative participation. In it, the emergence of this construct is reviewed, along with the predictors of and variables associated with communicative participation in the dysarthrias. In doing so, the features that make communicative participation unique and distinct from other measures of dysarthria are highlighted, through emphasizing how communicative participation cannot be predicted solely from other components of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), including levels of impairment or activity limitations. Next, the empirical literature related to the measurement of communicative participation and how this research relates to dysarthria management is presented. Finally, the development of robust clinical measures of communicative participation and approaches to management is described from the point of view of the clinician. We argue that communicative participation should be a primary focus of treatment planning and intervention to provide patient-centered, holistic, and value-based clinical interventions which are responsive to the needs of individuals living with dysarthria.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".