In French, DLD is TDL !
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016, for English-speaking countries, the CATALISE project, agreed on common terminology and criteria for reporting unexplained oral language impairment in children. The term "Developmental Language Disorder" (DLD) was recommended for language difficulties that cause functional impact in everyday life and that are associated with a poor prognosis without the presence of a known biomedical etiology. The use of a single term is intended, among other things, to improve the visibility of this little-known disorder to the general population. Our aim is to present the French translation of DLD. In French-speaking countries, many terms are used to describe oral language disorders in children (retard de langage, trouble primaire du langage, dysphasie). These different terms are not interchangeable. For example, the term “dysphasie” is reserved for the most severe language disorders. An informal discussion led an international group of francophone SLTs to agree on the term "Trouble développemental du langage" (TDL) to move beyond the contrast of delay/disorder still used in clinical practice. “Dysphasie”, for example, could be integrated into TDL as part of a continuum of severity in terms of functional impact, without necessarily using a distinct term. Despite this agreement, there are ongoing challenges to the adoption of this term. However it is important to having a single common term in line with international guidelines. In France, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Lebanon and other French-speaking countries, the agreed proposed translation for DLD is “TDL”. Developmental Language Disorder – Terminology – French-speaking – Trouble développemental du langage The aim is to reach a common use of the term TDL by newly qualified and long-time licensed speech-language pathologists. On a conceptual basis, this will impact people working with people with DLD and people living with DLD themselves. This agreement on the translation of DLD into French is the first step towards a better integration of concepts of pathology specific to SLTs, whether developmental or not.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".