Patterns of Adult-Child Linguistic Interaction in Integrated Day Care Groups
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
PURPOSE: This study investigated the language input of eight childcare providers to children with developmental disabilities, including language delay, who were integrated into community day care centers. METHOD: Structural and discourse features of the adults' language input was compared across two groups (integrated, typical) and two naturalistic day care contexts (book reading, play dough activity). The eight children with developmental disabilities and language delay were between 33-50 months of age; 32 normally developing peers ranged in age from 32-53 months of age. Adult-child interactions were transcribed and coded to yield estimates of structural indices (number of utterances, rate, mean length of utterances, ratio of different words to total words used (TTR) and discourse features (directive, interactive, language-modelling) of their language input. RESULTS: The language input addressed to the children with developmental disabilities was directive and not finely tuned to their expressive language levels. In turn, these children interacted infrequently with the adult or with the other children. Contextual comparisons indicated that the play dough activity promoted adult-child interaction that was less directive and more interaction-promoting than book reading, and that children interacted more frequently in the play-dough activity. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Implications for speech-language pathologists include the need for collaborative consultation in integrated settings, modification of adult-child play contexts to promote interaction, and training childcare providers to use language input that promotes communication development.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it