MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761029175 · doi:10.1080/02699206.2017.1359854

Word-initial rhotics in Slovenian 4-year-olds with typical versus protracted phonological development

2017· article· en· W2761029175 on OpenAlexafffund
Martina Ozbič, Damjana Kogovšek, Joseph Paul Stemberger, Barbara May Bernhardt, Mojca Muznik, Jerneja Novšak Brce

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Linguistics & Phonetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniverza v Ljubljani
KeywordsSingletonPsychologyPhonological developmentWord (group theory)PhonologyLanguage developmentCluster (spacecraft)Developmental psychologyLinguisticsBiologyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes word-initial (WI) rhotic cluster development in Slovenian 4-year-olds. Data for /l/ and WI singleton /r/ serve as comparisons. Participants were 19 children with typical development (TD) and 13 with more protracted phonological development (PPD). A single-word list included 15 WI /r/-clusters, 9 /l/-clusters and 3 singleton /r/s and /l/s each. Results showed significantly higher match (accuracy) levels for rhotics in the TD group. Among rhotic clusters, TD children showed highest match levels for labial clusters, and the PPD group, for /dr/. Match levels did not differ significantly between singletons and clusters or targets in stressed versus unstressed syllables. Substitutions were more frequent than deletions, and children with PPD had more frequent and varied mismatch patterns; for the PPD group, [l] was the most frequent substitution for /r/ and for the TD group, other rhotics. The study provides additional criterion reference data on Slovenian phonological development.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.324 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Linguistics & PhoneticsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207