MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043090057 · doi:10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00176

Properties of Lexical Diversity in the Narratives of Children With Typical Language Development and Developmental Language Disorder

2020· article· en· W3043090057 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexical diversityNarrativePsychologyDiversity (politics)Sample (material)NormativeUtteranceMean length of utteranceDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsLanguage developmentSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose We examined four measures of lexical diversity in the narratives of children with typical language development (TLD) and developmental language disorder (DLD) that comprised the normative sample of the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (Schneider et al., 2005). The purpose was to document the properties of each measure with respect to variations in utterance and sample length, developmental trends, and group differences. Method The sample consisted of 377 picture-elicited, story generation transcripts from children with TLD ( n = 300) and DLD ( n = 77) aged 4–9 years. We extracted the moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR) and the number of different words from the full sample, from samples equated for the number of utterances, and from samples equated for the total number of words. Results MATTR was the only measure to show no relationships to utterance or sample length. All measures showed significant positive growth with age and significant groupwise differences between children with TLD and DLD. However, the magnitude of age effects and differentiation between groups varied considerably across measures. Across measures, there were significant differences in the number of children with DLD who were identified with low lexical diversity relative to their same-age peers in the TLD group. Conclusion The results of this study support the view that different measures of lexical diversity may be appropriate for different clinical purposes. It is important for clinicians to understand how measures of lexical diversity function in order to make educated choices among measures and ensure appropriate interpretation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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