MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090396984 · doi:10.1080/14769670601092622

Speech and language development in six infants adopted from China

2006· article· en· W2090396984 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna R. Price, Karen Pollock, D. Kimbrough Oller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multilingual Communication Disorders · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsChinaPsychologyLanguage developmentDevelopmental psychologyTest (biology)Communication skillsMedicineMedical educationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children adopted from China currently represent the largest group of newly internationally adopted children in the US. An exploratory investigation of the communicative development of six young females adopted at ages 9 to 17 months from China by US families was conducted. Children were followed longitudinally from approximately three months post-adoption to age three years. English language skills were assessed at approximately three-month intervals, detailed communicative analyses were conducted at six months post-adoption, and outcomes were measured at three years of age. Results indicated wide variability in rates of English language development. Phonological, social-communicative, and lexical bases of communication were intact for each child at six months post-adoption. At age three years, four of the children demonstrated speech and language skills within one standard deviation of standardized test norms, one child demonstrated skills above the normal range, and one child's skills were below the normal range. This study provides evidence of the resiliency of children's language learning abilities.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multilingual Communication DisordersSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207