What’s That You Say? Communication Breakdowns and Their Repairs in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversational fluency is important to form meaningful connections and relationships with the people around us but is understudied in children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH). Communication breakdowns reduce conversational fluency. They occur when a speaker says something that interrupts the flow of conversation requiring a request for clarification or confirmation from their listener to repair the misunderstanding. Young children who are D/HH are at risk of more frequent communication breakdowns and fewer successful repairs than children with typical hearing (The missing link in language development of deaf and hard of hearing children: Pragmatic language development. Seminars in Speech and Language, 33 (04), 297-309). About 14 children who were D/HH aged 7-12 year and 15 children with typical hearing were matched on chronological age. Comparisons of the number and duration of communication breakdowns, requests for repair, and responses to requests used by children in a 10-min conversation with an adult were completed. Results showed that while children who were D/HH demonstrated some differences, they were more similar to their typically hearing peers in communication breakdowns and repairs than previously reported in the literature.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".