MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107425573 · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/050)

The Effect of Target-Selection Strategy on Phonological Learning

2001· article· en· W2107425573 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonological DisorderPsychologyGeneralizationSelection (genetic algorithm)PhonologyPhonological rulePhonological developmentPhonological awarenessDevelopmental psychologyTypically developingTreatment and control groupsAudiologyLinguisticsMedicineLiteracyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, 48 children with moderate or severe delays in phonological ability received treatment for four phonemes, selected in accordance with either traditional or nontraditional target-selection criteria. Children who received treatment for phonemes that are early developing and associated with greater productive phonological knowledge showed greater progress toward acquisition of the target sounds than did children who received treatment for late-developing phonemes that were associated with little or no productive phonological knowledge. Between-group differences in generalization learning were not observed. Child enjoyment of therapy did not differ between groups, but parental satisfaction with treatment progress was greater for children in the traditional group than for children in the nontraditional group.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.360 · 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