Soutenir les habiletés pragmatiques chez les enfants ayant un trouble développemental du langage : fondements théoriques pour la pratique clinique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both clinicians and researchers agree on the importance of supporting a socially relevant language use in children at risk for communication disorders. Although we have some information on best practices for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the evidence for children with developmental language disorder (DLD) is scarce. Even if there is a growing body of literature discussing the efficacy of speech and language interventions in preschool and school settings, these interventions have focused primarily on early literacy skills (including vo cabulary and discourse abilities) to prepare all children to enter school. Despite this lack of evidence in the literatur e, clinicians have developed skillful strategies to support and facilitate the development of other pragmatic skills such as conversation abilities. The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss the theo retical foundations of pragmatic interventions with children having DLD and to present an example of an intervention based on theoretical foundations and clinical experience.
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 | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".