MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Speech Development in Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants

2008· article· en· W2093173948 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Eve Bouchard, Christine Ouellet, Henrí Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Linguistics Compass · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantationAudiologySpeech productionSpeech perceptionCochlear implantPsychologyProfound hearing lossPerceptionLanguage developmentSensorineural hearing lossHearing lossMedicineDevelopmental psychologySpeech recognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and Linguistics CompassSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207