MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106571394 · doi:10.1080/02699200110112222

The influence of syllable position on children's production of consonants

2002· article· en· W2106571394 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Rvachew, Ellen Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Linguistics & Phonetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllableConsonantWord (group theory)LinguisticsStress (linguistics)PsychologyProduction (economics)Consonant clusterCodaSpeech recognitionComputer scienceVowelAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies examined consonant production by 13 children with delayed phonological skills. Study 1 examined patterns of substitution errors in word-initial, word-final and intervocalic positions of two-syllable words with a strong-weak stress pattern. For phonemes that were misarticulated in at least one word position, intervocalic consonant production was most likely to be the same as the word-final consonant production, but different from the word-initial consonant production. Study 2 examined proportions of matches and mismatches for features in five positions of multisyllabic words: (1) syllable-initial, word-initial, (2) syllable-initial, within-word, (3) intervocalic before an unstressed syllable, (4) syllable-final, within-word, and (5) syllable-final, word-final. Significant variations in match ratios were observed as a function of syllable position. A number of different patterns of position-dependent errors were observed.

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)0.013
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Linguistics & PhoneticsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207