MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1540045194

The Development of VOT perception in school-aged children

2012· article· en· W1540045194 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicole Netelenbos, Fangfang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationVoice-onset timePhonological developmentPerceptionPsychologyPlace of articulationLanguage developmentArticulation (sociology)Boundary (topology)Developmental psychologySpeech perceptionCategorical perceptionFunction (biology)AudiologyPhonologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsSpeech recognitionVowelComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineConsonant
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary results of an on-going research project that aims to investigate the development of pre-vocalic stop categorization in children aged 4 to 9 are presented. The study examines whether there exists age-related perceptual differences in school-aged children and investigates whether developmental differences in phonemic categorization vary as a function of stop place of articulation. A total of 48 children aged 4 to 9 participating in the study were self-reported as normal hearing individuals with no known language, speech, or learning delays. Older children demonstrated a sharper transition between phonemic categories as well as a more precise phonemic boundary location. Linguistic boundary solidification in voice onset time (VOT) perception development is similar to the reported production development sequence, with the phonemic categorization pattern being consistent with the suggested sequence of emergence of these articulators.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acoustics→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→