Roles of Initiation and Responsiveness in Access and Participation for Children With Specific Language Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the abilities of children with specific language impairment (SLI; n = 10) and typically developing (TD) children (n = 13) to access and participate in an ongoing interaction between two unfamiliar peer partners. Results revealed that all children in the study accessed by either making an unprompted initiation toward their peers (access initiation) or by responding to a question or play invitation directed toward them (access response). However, 4 children with SLI were unsuccessful in achieving successful access initiation during the 10-min play period. Children with SLI required a longer period of time to achieve access initiation. Following access, children with SLI were addressed significantly less by their play partners, participated in less group play, and engaged in more individual play and onlooking behavior. Among the SLI group, language levels were negatively related to the time children required to achieve their first successful access and first access initiation. Expressive language levels were positively related to the percentage of utterances children produced postaccess and the percentage of utterances they were addressed postaccess by their play partners. Differences in receptive skills among SLI children were less strongly related to the time they required in achieving their first access and were unrelated to their ability to participate in the interaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".