MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293103013 · doi:10.1080/02699206.2022.2046172

When liquids and fricatives outrank stops: A Kuwaiti Arabic-speaking child with Down syndrome and protracted phonological development

2022· article· en· W4293103013 on OpenAlexaff
Hadeel Ayyad, Barbara May Bernhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Linguistics & Phonetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKuwait University
KeywordsPsychologyPhonologyLinguisticsVowelPhonological developmentArabicPhonological ruleLanguage developmentTypically developingWord (group theory)Vowel lengthAudiologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the phonological system of a monolingual Kuwaiti Arabic-speaking 9-year-old girl with Down Syndrome (DS) as part of a special crosslinguistic issue presenting individual profiles of children with protracted phonological development within the framework of constraints-based nonlinear phonology. Her responses to a 100-word speech test were audio-recorded and transcribed narrowly by two native speakers. Analyses showed low accuracy for word shapes (CV sequences), primarily because of expected deletion patterns in initial weak syllables and clusters, but also reflecting inaccuracies in segment length. Vowel match was also relatively low. For consonants, she unexpectedly showed lower accuracy for stops than typically later-developing liquids and fricatives. This case study provides researchers and speech-language pathologists with broader information about expected and unexpected patterns in children with DS and protracted phonological development in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Linguistics & PhoneticsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207