QuickPic AAC: An AI-Based Application to Enable Just-in-Time Generation of Topic-Specific Displays for Persons Who Are Minimally Speaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) makes significant headway in various arenas, the field of speech–language pathology is at the precipice of experiencing a transformative shift towards automation. This study introduces QuickPic AAC, an AI-driven application designed to generate topic-specific displays from photographs in a “just-in-time” manner. Using QuickPic AAC, this study aimed to (a) determine which of two AI algorithms (NLG-AAC and GPT-3.5) results in greater specificity of vocabulary (i.e., percentage of vocabulary kept/deleted by clinician relative to vocabulary generated by QuickPic AAC; percentage of vocabulary modified); and to (b) evaluate perceived usability of QuickPic AAC among practicing speech–language pathologists. Results revealed that the GPT-3.5 algorithm consistently resulted in greater specificity of vocabulary and that speech–language pathologists expressed high user satisfaction for the QuickPic AAC application. These results support continued study of the implementation of QuickPic AAC in clinical practice and demonstrate the possibility of utilizing topic-specific displays as just-in-time supports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".