Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared performance of children on 2 tests of nonword repetition to investigate the factors that may contribute to the well-documented nonword repetition deficit in specific language impairment (SLI). METHOD: Twelve children with SLI age 7 to 11 years, 12 age-matched control children, and 12 control children matched for language ability completed 2 tests of nonword repetition: the Children's Test of Nonword Repetition (CNRep) and the Nonword Repetition Test (NRT). RESULTS: The children with SLI performed significantly more poorly on both tests than typically developing children of the same age. The SLI group was impaired on the CNRep but not the NRT relative to younger children with similar language abilities when adjustments were made for differences in general cognitive ability. The children with SLI repeated the lengthiest nonwords and the nonwords containing consonant clusters significantly less accurately than the control groups. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that the nonword repetition deficit in SLI may arise from a number of factors, including verbal short-term memory, lexical knowledge, and output processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".