Perceptual Evidence for Young Children's Developing Knowledge of Phonotactic Probabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phonotactic probabilities and children's speech production have been investigated widely, in both children with typical language development and children with phonological delay. Research has also documented infants' sensitivities to phonotactic probabilities in infant speech perception, using methodologies that measure infants' listening preferences. However, few studies have examined phonotactic probabilities in speech perception past the first year of life with children who are already producing language. Two-year-old Dutch-learning children were tested on their ability to perceive segmental contrasts in nonwords composed of high and low phonotactic probabilities, controlled for word-onset and word-offset position. Analogous to previous results from production, results from perception indicated that segmental contrasts that were presented in high phonotactic probability environments were perceived more accurately than the same contrasts presented in low phonotactic probability environments. Children did not show differential perception of contrasts based on word position. The implications of the findings are discussed with respect to frequency-based effects in phonological acquisition.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it