Canadian manufacturer and technician perspectives on the design and use of augmentative and alternative communication technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Device manufacturers and technicians (MaTs) of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems play key roles in the design and successful uptake of communication devices. This study aims to investigate MaT perspectives on AAC device design and effective use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To investigate their perspectives, a focus group of MaTs within Canada was conducted. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze data. FINDINGS: Three major themes resulted from analysis, which reflect MaT's views: AAC hardware and software flexibility, AAC knowledge and implementation, and social good versus financial resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the complexities faced by MaTs in balancing technical support of system end-users and the financial resources necessary for that support. These insights indicate a need for increased financial resources and the expansion of individuals who qualify for AAC system candidacy. MaTs suggest that an increase in resources and candidacy could lead to more successful AAC implementation and a greater understanding of AAC for all stakeholders.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".