A multi-modal approach to intervention for one adolescent's frontal lisp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An adolescent with a persistent frontal lisp participated in a two-part 11-session intervention case study. The first phase used ultrasound imagery and acoustic, phonetic and voice education to provide information about articulatory setting (AS) and general awareness of the speech production process. The second phase used traditional articulation therapy, online visual-acoustic biofeedback and fluency strategies to target the frontal lisp directly (specifically /s/, /z/, /ʃ/ and /ʧ/). Trained listener evaluations of pre-intervention, post-phase 1 and post-phase 2 assessments showed no improvement after phase 1, but notable improvement in all treatment targets immediately after phase 2. These improvements were substantially maintained at assessment 4 months post-intervention. The outcomes suggest that direct training was more effective than the AS approach; however, the client's ability to self-monitor in phase 2, rapid acquisition of the targets and maintenance at 4 months post-intervention possibly reflected the knowledge gained in phase 1 about AS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".