MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproduction of Inflectional Markers in French-Speaking Children With Reading Impairment

2010· article· en· W2076390531 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Catherine St‐Pierre, Renée Béland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAdjectiveRepetition (rhetorical device)Reading (process)LinguisticsVerbNounAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Children with reading impairment (RI) experience difficulties in oral and written production of inflectional markers. The origin of these difficulties is not well documented in French. According to some authors, acquisition of irregular items by typically developing children is predicted by token frequency, whereas acquisition of regular items is predicted by type frequency. The authors hypothesized that acquisition of inflectional markers in French depends on the distribution of irregular, invariable, and regular (transparent) items within a grammatical category. METHOD: Fifteen children with RI age matched with 15 children with typical reading development repeated and read aloud sentences containing adjectives inflected for gender and verbs inflected for number. Inflected adjectives and verbs were matched for token frequency and phonological complexity, whereas distribution of invariable, transparent, and irregular items differed within each grammatical category. RESULTS: Results show higher error rates in the RI group, who produced more errors in reading than repetition, and more errors on inflected verbs than adjectives. Error distribution varied with the proportion of invariable, irregular, and transparent items within each grammatical category, confirming the authors' hypothesis. CONCLUSION: The authors concluded that morphological difficulties of children with RI group originated from a delay in extracting systematicity in verb and adjective inflectional marking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207