Single-Word and Conversational Measures of Word-Finding Proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies with young adults as participants evaluated the relationship, presumed in the word-finding literature to exist, between slow, inaccurate performances in single-word-naming and semantic-retrieval tasks and disruptions to conversational fluency. The measures evaluated were the frequency of conversational disruptions and the scores from 3 single-word tasks: total time from the Rapid Automatized Naming task (RAN; M. B. Denckla and R. G. Rudel, 1976), standard score from the Brief Test of the Test of Adolescent/Adult Word Finding (TAWF; D. J. German, 1990), and total unique words from the Controlled Oral Word Association task (FAS; A. L. Benton and K. Hamsher, 1978). RAN time was the only significant predictor of the frequency of conversational disruptions, although this relationship was weak (R(2) =.11). In addition, single-word performances did not discriminate between groups of participants with differing levels of conversational fluency. Clinicians are cautioned against identifying word-finding deficits using single-word measures alone. Moreover, the theoretical construct of word-finding difficulties requires additional validation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".