Children With a History of Expressive Vocabulary Delay
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
Outcomes of 21 children who were previously identified as late talkers were investigated at 5 years of age. The model of service delivery used for these children included a parent program for preventive intervention when the children were 2 years old, followed by focused direct intervention for children whose gains in speech and/or language skills continued to be slow. Their outcomes at 5 years of age were investigated using general language measures as well as higher level language tasks designed to stress the language system. Late talkers’ results were compared to those of a comparison group of children with histories of typical language development. Scores on standardized tests of language development indicated that the majority of late-talking children (i.e., 86%) had ‘caught up’ to their age-matched peers in expressive grammar and vocabulary. However, weaknesses remained in a number of higher level language areas, including a standardized test designed to measure facility with teacher-child discourse, a novel task that examined the child's use of pragmatic cues for anaphora resolution of ambiguous sentences, and narrative tasks. The clinical implications of these findings include close monitoring of these children as they reach school age and intervention in key areas of weakness for children who continue to demonstrate language difficulties as they mature.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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