INFORMATION PAPER Research to Inform Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some people with disabilities use working dogs to assist and support them in accessing a full range of activities in their daily lives. The most commonly recognized assistance animals are dogs. As assistance animals, dogs provide help for the visually and hearing impaired, serve as an alert system for impending seizures, and offer additional strength and mobility for the physically disabled. Assistant animals are reported to also provide emotional support and have a positive impact upon the well-being of their users (Canine Companions for Independence, 2008, Department of Agriculture, 2004). This paper explores the increasing advocacy for the academic and social benefits of service dogs for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and their families. This advocacy is extending to increasingly frequent requests for service dogs to accompany children with ASD within the school setting. Information Papers provide a review and summary of research on requested topics. The papers aim to promote informed decision making about issues and practices that affect the education and well-being of children with autism within our public education systems. Why is the issue important? Autism is a developmental disability affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction which impacts a child’s educational performance. Other characteristics associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change, or change in daily routines. Some individuals may experience unusual responses to sensory stimuli (Simpson et al., 2004). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently indicated that autism now affects approximately 1 % or 1 in every 110 American children. Leading researchers in Canada (NEDSAC, 2008) indicate that our prevalence statistics do not differ significantly from what the CDC is reporting (Autism Society of Canada). Dr Susan Bryson,
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 | 0.073 | 0.258 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.252 | 0.102 |
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".