MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111304998 · doi:10.3109/07434618.2010.481563

The Role of Word Order in the Interpretation of Canonical and Non-Canonical Graphic Symbol Utterances: A Developmental Study

2010· article· en· W2111304998 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

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communicationSymbol (formal)Interpretation (philosophy)Non canonicalSequence (biology)Word (group theory)Computer scienceLinguisticsWord orderCommunicationNatural language processingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graphic symbols are often used to represent words in Augmentative and Alternative Communication systems. Previous findings suggest that different processes operate when using graphic symbols and when using speech. This study assessed the ability of native speakers of French with no communication disorders from four age groups to interpret graphic-symbol sequences of varying length and canonicity. Results reveal that, as they get older, participants show an increase in their capacity to interpret graphic-symbol sequences. Constituent order played an important role in the interpretation of the sequences. However, the specific word-order strategies used varied depending on the age group and the type of sequence presented.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.380 · 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