Environmental factors influencing choice of spelling and graphic symbols in communicative interactions of adolescents who use communication aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory interpretative qualitative study aimed to investigate environmental factors influencing "in the moment" decisions about use of graphic symbols or spelling in face-to-face communicative interactions, by adolescents who use communication aids and are learning how to spell. The participants were six adolescents (who used speech generating devices) and their mothers. Data collection consisted of seven to eight communicative interactions between adolescents and their mothers and follow up interviews with the participants. Each dyad took part in three Zoom sessions. Researchers identified the communication mode shifts between graphic symbols and spelling during interactions and subsequently discussed with participants the reasons for these shifts. The interview data were analyzed using Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory approach to coding. The analysis revealed three themes explaining environmental factors relevant to choosing spelling or graphic symbols in communicative interactions, which were: (a) features of the communication aid; (b) communication partner's skills and their knowledge of the shared experience; and (c) opportunities to practice and use spelling. The findings provide insights into the importance of providing opportunities to practice and use spelling, communication partner's skills and knowledge of shared experience and communication aid technology design which can help to facilitate spelling during communicative interactions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".