MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284529578 · doi:10.14288/1.0104894

An investigation of speech misarticulations of grade six children in two Canadian school systems

2011· article· en· W2284529578 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret Elaine Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to assess the relative effectiveness of a program of speech therapy in the elementary schools by determining the difference between two urban school populations, one having provided a program of speech therapy for ten years previously, and the other lacking such a program, in terms of: 1. pupil performance on a speech test 2. ability of teachers to identify misarticulations, and 3. Pupils’ opinions of their speaking ability and their confidence in speaking situations. Administrators in the field of special education should, be provided with information on the effectiveness of speech therapy in the public school program. Review of the literature was made in terms of studies on speech problems, incidence of speech problems, reports on programmes of speech therapy in public schools, and studies undertaken in Canada. A pilot study was undertaken and the judgments of the investigator, who is a qualified speech therapist, and of one other qualified speech therapist were compared. Two hundred and seventy-six Grade Six pupils in each of two Canadian school systems were screened by the investigator by means of an articulation test, and the results reported quantitatively. Teachers were asked to identify all children with speech misarticulations, and to judge the effect such misarticulations had on the children socially and academically. Teachers’ and therapist's identification of speech misarticulations were compared. Pupils were asked to answer a questionnaire containing questions about their speaking ability and confidence in speaking situations. The investigator gave an arbitrary value to the responses to these questions, and surmised that the higher the total score, the more the pupil’s concern about speaking ability. Results of the questionnaire and speech test were collated, summarized and correlated with IBM data-processing equipment. The results showed a statistically significant difference in the mean scores on the speech assessment of the two groups. The children in the school system providing speech therapy made higher scores. More teachers identified children with articulation difficulties in the school system providing speech therapy. Their judgments compared favourably with the judgments of the investigator. In the total group tested, it was found that children with one or more misarticulations scored, significantly higher on the Pupil Questionnaire than did those children with no misarticulations. This same relationship existed between the mean score on the Pupil Questionnaire for the pupils having one or more misarticulations on the speech assessment, in the school system with therapy. This relationship, however, was not found to be present under the same criteria in the school system that did not provide therapy. The investigator suggests that the differences in the two groups tested may be accounted for on the basis of a speech therapy programme or the basis of other factors which are as yet unidentified. It was recommended further that the same type of study be repeated in two school systems providing speech therapy, and in two school systems which do not provide speech therapy.

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)0.004
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicLinguistic Studies and Language AcquisitionFrench-language works237,207