MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623451806

POSTER: A Comprehensive Review of the Historical Contributions into Language Acquisition and Development Over the Last Century are Formulated Here to Provide an Understanding of how Normal Language Develops and Difficulties Occur

2016· review· en· W2623451806 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueITC 2016 Conference · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Cognitive sciencePerceptionCognitionPsychologyModalitiesProcess (computing)Language developmentLanguage acquisitionCognitive psychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologySociologyNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Over the last century numerous theoretical perspectives have been formulated which continue to contribute to the vast literature on language development. Evaluating the effectiveness of theories and models is often confined to the world of academia for the purposes of publishing research papers, journals, books, and presenting at conferences. Yet, the importance of historical research into the acquisition of language and cognitive development is critical to those professionals involved in the assessment of childhood developmental disorders. Contributions The purpose of presenting this article is to briefly describe the dominant theoretical views and basic tenets proposed by Piaget (1955; 1968), Chomsky (1968; 1981), Fodor (1975;1983), Karmiloff-Smith (1985; 1990;1992), Mandler (2004; 2008). This is followed by an account on the importance of acknowledging the research in sensory neural development (Kolb & Whishaw 1990). In particular, our perceptual ability to process all sensory information and to gain an understanding of how children develop speech and language problems, difficulties in identifying specific letters, and in differentiating between the sounds of letters and phonemes. All of which are explored within the cognitive framework proposed by Hoover & Gough (1998). The ability to match information from the different sensory modalities is what Geschwind (1975), Luria (1973) and others proposed is the foundation for the evolution of language. Therein, identifying how each skill is independently acquired, but interconnect according to the task requirements. Conclusions To conclude, the deficits reported in the production and understanding of language, and the problems occurring when reading and writing are considered in accordance with the functions mapped by Brodman (1909).  In adapting an eclectic approach, it is possible to formulate, a synthesis that can be universally accepted with regard to the acquisition of normal language development (submitted by Ita Burke to: Symposium 10 th ITC Conference Vancouver Canada 14/01/2016). Biblography Burke, I. (2014). A comprehensive review of the historical contributions into Language Acquisition and Development over the last century are formulated here to provide an understanding of how normal language develops and difficulties occur . Chomisky, N. (1968). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace. Chomisky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding . Dordrecht: Foris. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Fodor, J.A. (1983). The modularity of mind . Cambridge,MA:MIT/Bradford. Geschwind, N. (1975). The apraxias: Neural mechanisms of disorders of learned movement. American Scientist 63:199-195. Hoover,W.,A., Gough, P., B. (1998). The Cognitive Foundations Of Learning to Read: The Reading Acquisition Framework-An Overview. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (800) 476-6861 211 E. 7 th Street Austin, Texas 78701 Karmiloff-Smith (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1 (1), 60-85. Karmiloff-Smith, A (1990), Constraints on representational change: Evidence from children’s drawing. Cognition ,34,57-83. Karmiloff-Smith , A. (1992). Beyond Modularity Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. Kolb, B. Whishaw, I., Q. (1990).  Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology 3 rd Edition. Published by W.H. Freeman and Company. United States of America. Luria, A. R. The Working Brain. New York: Penguin, 1973. Mandler, J.,M. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Mandler, J.,M. (2008). Infants Concepts Revisited. Philosophical Psychology Vol. 21, No, 2, April 2008, pp, 269-280.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.280 · 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