MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079768547 · doi:10.1080/13682820410001663252

Conversational repair in speakers with autism spectrum disorder

2004· article· en· W2079768547 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConversationVariety (cybernetics)Autism spectrum disorderAutismDevelopmental psychologyPopulationNonverbal communicationAudiologyCommunicationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The ability to repair communicative breakdown is an important pragmatic language skill, yet very little is known about it in the population of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Previous investigations have shown that people with ASD, across a variety of ages and language levels, recognized communicative breakdown and responded to requests for clarification (RQCLs) with a wide variety of repair strategies. No previous work has assessed the repair abilities of speakers with ASD when faced with a persistent communicative breakdown indicated by a stacked series of RQCLs. AIMS: The present paper aimed to determine whether school-aged, high-functioning children with ASD responded to a stacked series of RQCLs in a way similar to children matched for language age. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Nine school-aged, high-functioning children with ASD were recruited and matched to nine control group children based on language level. During conversation, an unfamiliar examiner engineered 10 episodes of communicative breakdown. Each consisted of a stacked series of three RQCLs ('What?', 'I don't understand', 'Tell me another way'). Verbal and non-verbal responses to each RQCL were coded. Responses were analysed by a series of repeated measures analyses of variance with diagnostic group and RQCL type/position as independent variables and type of repair as the dependent variable. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Children with ASD were similar to language age-matched control children in responding to RQCLs and employing a variety of repair strategies. In addition, their pattern of responding over the series of RQCLs was very similar to the controls in varying the repair strategy by adding increasingly more information as the breakdown persisted, i.e. as the sequence of RQCLs progressed. Children with ASD, however, were significantly more likely than language age-matched controls to respond to an RQCL with an inappropriate response. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to repair communicative breakdown successfully raises questions about some of the currently popular theories about the source and nature of social and communicative deficits in autism. In addition, the presence of significantly more inappropriate utterances in the group with ASD poses both theoretical and clinical challenges. In theoretical terms, several possible explanations are proposed, but future work will need to test these hypotheses. Clinically, it is important to focus on utterances that disrupt the conversational flow and that generate severe social penalties for the speaker with ASD.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · 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