Phonological assessment and analysis tools for Tagalog: Preliminary development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information and assessment tools concerning Tagalog phonological development are minimally available. The current study thus sets out to develop elicitation and analysis tools for Tagalog. A picture elicitation task was designed with a warm-up, screener and two extension lists, one with more complex and one with simpler words. A nonlinear phonological analysis form was adapted from English (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000) to capture key characteristics of Tagalog. The tools were piloted on a primarily Tagalog-speaking 4-year-old boy living in a Canadian-English-speaking environment. The data provided initial guidance for revision of the elicitation tool (available at phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca). The analysis provides preliminary observations about possible expectations for primarily Tagalog-speaking 4-year-olds in English-speaking environments: Lack of mastery for tap/trill 'r', and minor mismatches for vowels, /l/, /h/ and word stress. Further research is required in order to develop the tool into a norm-referenced instrument for Tagalog in both monolingual and multilingual environments.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".