Commentary on "Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock Is Running"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologyClinical Forum1 Aug 2002Commentary on "Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock Is Running" Kelly Ingram andMA David Ingram Kelly Ingram Contact author: Kelly Ingram, MA, Arizona State University, LL 173, Tempe, AZ 85287-0102. E-mail: [email protected] Arizona State University, Tempe Google Scholar More articles by this author and David Ingram Arizona State University, Tempe Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/029) SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In "Commentary on "Evaluating Articulation and Phonological Disorders When the Clock Is Running"." American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(3), pp. 257–258 References Craig, C. S. (2001). GoldWave (Version 4.24) [computer software]. St. John's, Canada: GoldWave Inc. Retrieved from http://www.goldwave.com Google Scholar Ingram, D. (in press). The measurement of whole-word productions.Journal of Child Language. Google Scholar Ingram, D., & Ingram, K. (2001). A whole-word approach to phonological analysis and intervention.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 271–283. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Johnston, D. (2000). Cool Edit 2000 [computer software]. Phoenix, AZ: Syntrillium Software Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.syntrillium.com/cooledit/ Google Scholar Louko, L., & Edwards, M. L. (2001). Collecting and transcribing speech samples: Enhancing phonological analysis.Topics in Language Disorders, 21. Google Scholar J. Masterson (Ed.) (1999). Technological applications for speech and language assessments.Seminars in Speech and Language, 20. Google Scholar Summer Institute of Linguistics. (2001). Speech Analyzer (Version 1.5 Test 15.3) [computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.sil.org/computing/catalog/speechanalyzer.html Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology16:3 (246-259)1 Aug 2007Speech-Language Pathologists' Assessment Practices for Children With Suspected Speech Sound Disorders: Results of a National SurveySarah M. Skahan, Maggie Watson and Gregory L. LofAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology12:1 (121-122)1 Feb 2003Comments on the Special Forum on PhonologyArthur Podwall and Marcia PodwallAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology11:3 (259-263)1 Aug 2002EpilogueA. Lynn Williams Volume 11Issue 3August 2002Pages: 257-258 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library HistoryReceived: Jan 22, 2002Accepted: Apr 5, 2002 Published in issue: Aug 1, 2002 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2002 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
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) | 0.004 | 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".