RECURSOS E FERRAMENTAS DE COMUNICAÇÃO AUMENTATIVA E ALTERNATIVA PARA PROMOVER A COMUNICAÇÃO DE ALUNOS COM NECESSIDADES EDUCACIONAIS ESPECIAIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the need to use Augmentative and Alternative Communication in different contexts, it is important to know about studies that promote and discuss the implementation and development of these systems. The aim of this article is to contextualize part of the scenario of scientific knowledge production about the applications, purposes and development of Augmentative and Alternative Communication. It is an integrative review of articles published in journals indexed in different databases in Brazil and Portugal. Based on the application of previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 studies, including articles and dissertations, were selected to constitute the corpus of analysis. The results show that the studies analyzed recognize and consider the potential of Augmentative and Alternative Communication in communicative acts and social interactions between people with communication difficulties and their interlocutors. The research also showed the benefits in the teaching-learning process, considering the use of these systems as facilitators for effective communication in learning moments. Furthermore, there is a growing number of studies aimed at developing applications and technological devices to support communication. Therefore, it can be concluded that the studies support the understanding of Augmentative and Alternative Communication, as they present theoretical and practical knowledge, strategies, methodologies and resources. It should be noted that these systems are increasingly studied and have made progress in communication and inclusion of their users.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".