Spelling acquisition in French children with developmental language disorder: An analysis of spelling error patterns
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine spelling acquisition in French children with developmental language disorder (DLD) over a school year. Through a fine-grained spelling error analysis, we investigated whether spelling profiles could be established in the DLD population. This study comprised three groups: a typically developing (TD) group ( n = 16), a group of DLD children matched on spelling skills with the TD group ( n = 8), and a group of DLD children matched on chronological age and phonological awareness skills with their DLD peers ( n = 8), but showing weaker spelling skills. Results indicated that the DLD group matched on spelling skills with the TD group tended to produce more phonologically accurate spellings than the other DLD group. However, the two DLD groups did not differ on phonological awareness skills or vocabulary. Throughout the school year, the TD group and their DLD peers matched on spelling skills tended to add more silent letters in their spelling attempts than the other DLD group. With respect to phase models of spelling acquisition, our findings suggest that more advanced phases – like the orthographic and morphographic literacy phases – can be acquired even if the foundation processes are not well developed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it