What You Need to Know If You Want to Run an Aphasia Camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aphasia camps are an emerging psychosocial approach focusing on re-engaging people with aphasia in recreational and social activities. Current research highlights the positive impacts of aphasia camps on both attendees (people with aphasia and their loved ones) and facilitators (student and professional volunteers). However, the characteristics and facilitation of camps remain unknown due to a paucity of published research. Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the current scope of aphasia camps including their distribution, structure, and preparation requirements. Method: A mixed-method, cross-sectional exploratory survey was employed to facilitate collection of various camp characteristics. Quantitative data were analyzed via descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analyzed via inductive content analysis. Results: Who: The respondents ( N = 14) predominantly identified as allied health professionals ( n = 12) and were representative of 10 camps. Camps were commonly affiliated with a university or association. Where: Camps were located in the United States ( n = 5), Canada ( n = 3), Australia ( n = 1), and one cruise ship. All camps were held annually, with most having been operating between 10 and 15 years. How: Camp preparations tended to commence 10–12 months before the event. The camps were predominantly funded by the attendees, with half utilizing community grants, and no camps received government support. The typical camp ran over 3 days/two nights and had over 20 people with aphasia attend; however, the schedule was highly varied in structure and types of activities. Conclusions: Aphasia camps are highly diverse in structure, operation, and activities. Further research is needed to investigate stakeholder experiences and sustainable implementation practices to continue promoting the development of aphasia camps around the world. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28764962
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.014 |
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".