MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146476650 · doi:10.1027/0044-3409.216.3.161

Associations Between Key Language-Related Measures in Typically Developing School-Age Children

2008· article· en· W2146476650 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. D. Archibald, Marc F. Joanisse, Melany Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepetition (rhetorical device)PsychologyRecallCategorical variableNonverbal communicationCognitionReading (process)PerceptionCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three measures have been found to be predictive of developmental language impairment: nonword repetition, the production of English past tense, and categorical speech perception. Despite this, direct comparisons of these tasks have been limited. The present study explored the associations between these measures and other language and cognitive skills in an unselected group of 100 children aged 6 to 11 years. The children completed standardized tests of nonverbal ability, receptive language, and reading, as well as nonword repetition, past tense production, and categorical speech perception tasks. Nonword repetition and past tense were highly correlated. Variance in nonword repetition was explained additionally by digit recall, whereas receptive language, age, and digit recall accounted for significant portions of variance in past tense production. Categorical speech perception was not associated with any of the measures in the study. The extent to which common and distinct factors underlie the key language-related measures is discussed.

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)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of PsychologySame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207