Bulgarian Consonant Acquisition in Preschoolers with Typical versus Protracted Phonological Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research on Bulgarian consonant acquisition reports earlier acquisition of stops, nasals and glides than fricatives, affricates and liquids. The current study expands the investigation of Bulgarian consonant acquisition. The primary objective was to identify characteristics of protracted versus typical phonological development (PPD versus TD) relative to consonant match (accuracy) levels and mismatch patterns. A native speaker audio-recorded and transcribed single-word productions (110-word list) of sixty 3- to 5-year-olds (30 TD, 30 PPD). Another two transcribers confirmed transcriptions using acoustic analysis for disambiguation. Data generally confirmed previous findings regarding the order of consonant acquisition. Factors characteristic of PPD in comparison with TD were: lower match levels, especially at age 3 for onsets in unstressed syllables: later mastery of laterals; and a greater proportion and range of mismatch patterns, including deletion and more than one feature mismatch per segment (e.g., Manner & Place). The paper concludes with clinical and research implications.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".