Gestures accompanying speech in specifically language-impaired children and their timing with speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The repertoire and timing of gestures accompanying speech were compared in children with specific language impairment (SLI), aged 5—10 years, in typically developing peers (CA), individually matched on age and nonverbal IQ, and in younger language-matched (LM) children. They were videotaped in two tasks, recounting a cartoon and describing their classroom. Three types of gestures were coded — iconics, deictics and beats — and the synchrony of these gestures with speech was examined in terms of number of words encompassed, grammatical speech category at gesture onset, and relationship of iconic gestures to the concept expressed in speech. All groups used more deictic gestures in the classroom description task. SLI children differed from the comparison children only in their use of iconic gestures. They produced somewhat more of these, used them more often to replace words, and began them more often on a noun phrase object. Otherwise, language proficiency, at least as measured by standardized tests, did not appear to impact the gestural system. The fact that, for all groups, most iconic and deictic gestures began on the noun phrase subject indicates a close synchrony between gesture and speech onset.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".