Routine‐based interview in early intervention: professionals' perspectives
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
The Routine‐Based Interview is a promising method to collect information in Early Intervention, since it focuses on all members of the family and their routines, while seeking to highlight what parents consider a priority in the intervention. For that reason, in this paper, we aim to analyse the kind of benefits and difficulties that may be found in the Routine‐Based Interview's implementation process. The present research comprises the qualitative interview method, according to which semi‐structured interviews were carried out by eight Portuguese professionals enrolled in the Portuguese System for Early Intervention. The professionals highlight the benefits of the Routine‐Based Interview as a way to clearly and objectively evaluate and identify the concerns and priorities of the family, as well as the child's competencies and the functional goals that will be included in the intervention plan. All participants stress the need for more training in the Routine‐Based Interview process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.052 | 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