Individual profiles in protracted phonological development across languages: introduction to the special issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although group studies provide necessary information about the range and frequency of phenomena in phonological development, individual profiles (case studies) can be used to describe entire phonological systems in detail. Profiles from different languages can highlight similarities and differences across languages that may be less obvious in group studies. The current issue presents profiles of children with protracted phonological development (PPD: speech sound disorders) from 16 languages (Akan, Kuwaiti Arabic, Bulgarian, Canadian English, Farsi, Canadian French, German, Greek, Icelandic, Japanese, Mandarin, Polish, European Portuguese, Slovenian, Granada Spanish, Swedish). Utilising a constraints-based nonlinear phonological framework, each profile describes a child's strengths and needs in word structure, segments, features and their interactions and suggests an intervention plan. Where available, follow-up data from after clinical intervention are included. This introductory paper provides the theoretical background for the papers and reflects on the findings, drawing out particular themes and implications for phonological and developmental theories and clinical intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".