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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on early speech production has often argued that children's representations start out being holistic.They receive more phonological feature specifications in the course of development.In this talk, we will briefly review the arguments from early production for underspecified representations, and subsequently focus on two sets of perception studies, which both confirm the underspecified nature of children's early lexical representations.If words are stored as highly abstract units, then the prediction is that for word recognition detailed phonetic information is not used either.Moreover, not only do underspecified representations lead to asymmetrical patterns in production, the asymmetry is expected to show up in perception as well.Children's discrimination abilities may be very accurate, but mapping the perceived features to stored lexical items is a different matter.In the first set of experiments we replicated and expanded previous research by Werker and colleagues for Dutch.Werker and colleagues (1997Werker and colleagues ( , 2001Werker and colleagues ( , 2004)), showed, using the switch procedure, that 14-month-old Canadian infants do not perceive the contrast in the pair of nonce words bin-din in a word learning task.However, they did perceive the same contrast in a pure discrimination task, as well as in the pair of well-known words ball-doll.Therefore they argue that infants perceive phonetic detail and at least have detailed representations for known words.In our experiments we tested two pairs of nonce words bin-din (experiment 1) and bon-don (experiment 2) in a word-learning condition.In addition, we tested children's behavior on bin-din in a pure discrimination task (experiment 3).Based on results from production, we hypothesized that words like bon and don at the onset of speech would have a labial representation, due to the labial vowel, and words like din and bin a coronal representation.Moreover, we predicted coronal to behave as underspecified.Results from experiment 1 show that in the case of bin -din, Dutch 14-month-old infants do not listen significantly longer to the 'new' words than to the 'old' words, indicating that the difference between bin and din is not picked up.However, in the pair bon -don (experiment 2) infants did listen significantly longer to the 'new' than to the 'old' forms, suggesting that the bon -don contrast is perceived.Experiment 3 shows that children accurately discriminate bin -din.We argue that the difference between bin -din and bon -don is due to children's underlying representation of the perceived words: they store bin -din as (underspecified) [coronal], and bon -don as [labial].The perceived coronal feature of the 'd' in don mismatches with the labial representation of the word.The 'b' in bin on the other hand does not mismatch with coronal as this is underspecified in the lexicon.In conclusion, the results from this perception experiment confirm our predictions and are conform the patterns attested in production.In the second set of experiments, we investigated the nature of the phonological representations of well-known words in 24-month-old Dutch children, using a split-screen preferential looking paradigm.All test items were plosive-initial CVC words that were either
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it