Investigating the potential of NLP-driven linguistic and acoustic features for predicting human scores of children’s oral language proficiency
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
Children’s oral language proficiency (OLP) is integral for developing literacy skills. Storytelling or retelling is often used by parents and educators to elicit children’s OLP, yet it is less commonly used for assessment purposes. Leveraged by natural language processing and machine learning, this study examined the extent to which computational linguistic and acoustic indices predict human ratings of children’s (n=184 aged 9 to 11) OLP using two story retell stimuli presented in written and aural forms. Human raters scored children’s OLP on five oral proficiency criteria: vocabulary, grammar, idea development, task-fulfilment, and speech delivery, using a 4-point scale, and linguistic and acoustic features were used to predict each criterion. Results showed the efficacy of automated indices to predict human scores of children’s OLP. This study calls for attention to discrepancies in human and machine speech delivery scores and stimulus effects on story retelling performance among children of different language backgrounds.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it