MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W120502145

LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC PHONETIC PRODUCTION PATTERNS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF LIFE

2007· article· en· W120502145 on OpenAlexaffabout
Izabelle Grenon, Allison Benner, John H. Esling

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsArticulation (sociology)SyllablePlace of articulationPsychologyPerceptionTone (literature)Feature (linguistics)Language productionProduction (economics)ArabicConsonantSpeech productionVowelCognition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of sounds by infants from 1 to 12 months is evaluated according to place of articulation to verify the hypothesis that infants' production becomes language-specific towards the end of the first year. This study is based on an analysis of 4,499 sounds produced by 19 infants raised in one of 3 linguistic contexts: Canadian English, Moroccan Arabic, and Bai. Our results reveal that towards the end of the first year (10-12 months), infants show a preference for producing sounds at places of articulation that reflect their linguistic background, a finding that parallels results obtained in perceptual studies. Contrary to our expectations, however, the infants ' production at the end of the first year, albeit language-specific, does not directly correspond to the adult model. In the case of Bai infants, in particular, it was found that these infants use laryngeal constriction at a segmental level, while this phonetic feature is not employed in the adult model at a segmental level but at a syllable/word level for tone register contrasts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207