MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924085492 · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12133

Word structures of Granada Spanish‐speaking preschoolers with typical versus protracted phonological development

2014· article· en· W1924085492 on OpenAlexafffund
Barbara May Bernhardt, Rebecca Hanson, Denisse Pérez, Carmen Sánchez Ávila, Conxita Lleó, Joseph Paul Stemberger, Gloria Carballo, E. Mendoza, Dolores Fresneda, Mario E. Chávez-Peón

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsLinguisticsWord (group theory)Phonological developmentPsychologyPhonological awarenessPhonologyLanguage developmentReading (process)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research on children's word structure development is limited. Yet, phonological intervention aims to accelerate the acquisition of both speech-sounds and word structure, such as word length, stress or shapes in CV sequences. Until normative studies and meta-analyses provide in-depth information on this topic, smaller investigations can provide initial benchmarks for clinical purposes. AIMS: To provide preliminary reference data for word structure development in a variety of Spanish with highly restricted coda use: Granada Spanish (similar to many Hispano-American varieties). To be clinically applicable, such data would need to show differences by age, developmental typicality and word structure complexity. Thus, older typically developing (TD) children were expected to show higher accuracy than younger children and those with protracted phonological development (PPD). Complex or phonologically marked forms (e.g. multisyllabic words, clusters) were expected to be late developing. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Participants were 59 children aged 3-5 years in Granada, Spain: 30 TD children, and 29 with PPD and no additional language impairments. Single words were digitally recorded by a native Spanish speaker using a 103-word list and transcribed by native Spanish speakers, with confirmation by a second transcriber team and acoustic analysis. The program Phon 1.5 provided quantitative data. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: In accordance with expectations, the TD and older age groups had better-established word structures than the younger children and those with PPD. Complexity was also relevant: more structural mismatches occurred in multisyllabic words, initial unstressed syllables and clusters. Heterosyllabic consonant sequences were more accurate than syllable-initial sequences. The most common structural mismatch pattern overall was consonant deletion, with syllable deletion most common in 3-year-olds and children with PPD. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The current study provides preliminary reference data for word structure development in a Spanish variety with restricted coda use, both by age and types of word structures. Between ages 3 and 5 years, global measures (whole word match, word shape match) distinguished children with typical versus protracted phonological development. By age 4, children with typical development showed near-mastery of word structures, whereas 4- and 5-year-olds with PPD continued to show syllable deletion and cluster reduction, especially in multisyllabic words. The results underline the relevance of multisyllabic words and words with clusters in Spanish phonological assessment and the utility of word structure data for identification of protracted phonological development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Language & Communication DisordersSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207