Speech Development in Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants
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
Abstract Since the early 1980s, cochlear implantation has been an approved method for treating profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss in children. It is widely believed that the use of this device would significantly benefit young deaf children's development of speech and ability to participate in aural–oral communication. However, whereas significant improvement in speech reception and perception skills following implantation has been widely documented, cochlear prostheses as speech production aids have been studied less extensively. The main objective of this article is to review the work conducted on speech produced by prelingually deaf children following cochlear implantation. Cochlear implants and their functioning are described, as are the cognitive, social and clinical factors known to play a role in successful implantation of children. It is concluded that cochlear implantation may speed up speech production to near normal rates, but initial delays are not totally reversible. In addition, the variability in all performance measures is high, and the reasons for good and poor outcomes are only partly understood.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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