Assertive and responsive conversational skills of Italian‐speaking late talkers
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
BACKGROUND: Previous research on the pragmatic abilities of late talkers at 24 months of age indicates that they have difficulties initiating conversational interactions, but possess intact responsiveness skills. This study uses a parent-administered questionnaire for evaluating the conversational skills of late talkers and suggesting pragmatic intervention goals. AIM: To examine the conversational assertiveness and responsiveness of late talkers at 2 years of age. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A parent report measure, The Social Conversational Skills Rating Scale-Italian version, was administered to 30 parents of late talkers, 30 parents of typically developing children matched for age, and 30 parents of younger, typically developing children matched for vocabulary size. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The late talkers received significantly lower ratings for both assertiveness and responsiveness in comparison with their age-matched peers. They did not differ significantly from the younger, vocabulary-matched group. Assertiveness and responsiveness mean ratings were positively correlated with vocabulary size for the age-matched group, but not for either of the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms a delay in the development of late talkers' social-conversational skills. An investigation of individual profiles suggests that some late talkers may require goals for vocabulary development as well as independent goals for developing pragmatic skills.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it