MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393357607 · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00112-y

On the many terms for developmental language and learning impairments

2024· article· en· W4393357607 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLanguage acquisitionDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMathematics educationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The terms Language Disorder, Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), Language-based learning disabilities, Specific Learning Disorder, and Specific Learning Disability are commonly used to describe children struggling to learn at school. In this position paper, the definitions and distinctions between these terms are discussed, and key overlaps and differences described. Although often used interchangeably, Specific Learning Disorder and Specific Learning Disability are not synonymous. Based on current definitions, both children with DLD and children with Specific Learning Disorder could be classified as having a Specific Learning Disability in the educational setting. In educational settings, children with DLD may additionally be identified using terms such as Language Impairment, Speech, Language, Communication Needs (SLCN), and others. Despite the problematic overlap in the names Specific Learning Disorder and Specific Learning Disability, one advantage of the latter term is the acknowledgement that many skills underlying academic learning are language-based thereby capturing the disability experienced by children with language or academic learning disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.310 · 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