SOCIAL CONTEXT OF CHILDREN WHO USE AIDED COMMUNICATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the social context of children with severe motor and communication impairments who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), examining how they participate socially, and how they interact in a goal-oriented play activity. Chapter One provides the context by reviewing literature concerning the children who use AAC: describing their presentation, outlining the role of environmental influences, and reviewing what is known about their social context, participation and communicative interactions. This chapter reviews the issues faced by children who use AAC and outlines the thesis purpose and objectives. Chapter Two presents a qualitative study that explores the children’s social context, participation and social relationships from both children’s and parents’ perspectives. This study provides insight into children’s communicative abilities but highlights their limited social context and opportunities and supports for communicative interaction and social participation. Chapter Three presents a study that explores the communicative interaction within goal-oriented play activity. This study found that, if you give children who use AAC a ‘voice’, they experience communicative success. Group differences were evident, however. Compared to their peers, children using AAC were less specific, made more and different errors and received more help from partners. This study provides evidence of how contextual elements within activity settings could be altered so children could actively participate. Chapter Four presents a conceptual framework for understanding social context. This chapter integrates person-focused and environment-focused perspectives and leads to development of a framework that depicts the transactional influences of children and social environments. Recommendations for future studies are presented. Finally, Chapter Five discusses the implications of this dissertation, placing the insights gained from the empirical studies in the context of the proposed framework. Suggestions for further research and interventions are made that may improve health and developmental outcomes in children with severe motor and communication impairments.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".