Communication et langage du jeune enfant: actions de prévention précoce pour une intégration sociale réussie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of children with delayed language is increasing in vulnerable environment. Three types of preventing actions are proposed: screening, specific teaching to teachers and parents/children workshops. Coupling these 3 different approches allows to improve the language abilities of the children, and the children / teachers and children / parencts interactions. Material and methods: children were assessed by the means of 2 standardized tests, TVAP (Deltour 1998) and DPL3 (Coquet, 1996). The results permitted to define 3 groups: children without language disabilities (GR 1), borderline children (GR 2) and children with communicative and/or language impairment (GR 3). Teachers were submitted to a HANEN program (learning Language and Loving It). Parents were enrolled in a workshop on pragmatic interactions in language (CLSC orleans Québec). Children were post-tested using TVAP and DPL3. Results: children ciming from GR 1 an GR 2 displayed increased language abilities after the programs but no children from GR 3 (with language impairment).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".