Fricative acquisition in English- and Icelandic-speaking preschoolers with protracted phonological development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have directly compared fricative development across languages. The current study examined voiceless fricative production in Icelandic- versus English-speaking preschoolers with protracted phonological development (PPD). Expected were: a low fricative match (with age effect), highest match levels for /f/ and non-word-initial fricatives, developmentally early mismatch (error) patterns including deletion, multiple feature category mismatches or stops, and developmentally later patterns affecting only one feature category. Crosslinguistic differences in phonetic inventories were predicted to provide different options for mismatch patterns, e.g. affricates in English, [+spread glottis] segments in Icelandic. For each language, native speakers audio-recorded and transcribed single-word speech samples for thirteen 3-year-olds and ten 4-year-olds. Predictions regarding mismatches were generally confirmed. Accuracy data were partially confirmed, /f/ having a lower match than /s/ overall for the Icelandic children. Other results reflected language or group differences. The data provide confirmation that phonological acquisition reflects crosslinguistic, language-specific and child-specific influences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".