Padrões silábicos no desenvolvimento fonológico típico e atípico: análise ultrassonográfica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The present study aims to compare the production of syllabic patterns of the CVC and CV types performed by Brazilian children with typical and atypical phonological development through ultrasonography of tongue. Methods Ten children (five with typical and with five atypical phonological development) recorded nine pairs of words from the syllables: CCV and CV. The images and audios were captured simultaneously by the Articulate Assistant Advanced software. The data were submitted to perceptive analysis and ultrasonographic articulatory analysis (the area between the tip and the blade of the tongue). The area measurements were submitted to one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Results ANOVA demonstrated a significant effect for the clinical condition (typical and atypical), (F (1.8) = 172.48, p> 0.000) forthe area measurements. In both syllabic patterns (CCV and CV) the atypical children showed greater values of the area between the tip and the blade of the tongue. Regarding the syllabic patterns analyzed, the statistical test showed no significant effect (F (1.8)=0.19, p>0.658). Conclusion The use of a greater area of the tongue by children with atypical phonological development suggests the non-differentiation of the tip and the anterior body gestures of the tongue in the production of CV and CCV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".