EARLY COMMUNICATION INDICATOR-PORTUGAL: EVIDENCE FOR ITS USE IN ASSESSING AND MONITORING COMMUNICATION IN YOUNG CHILDREN
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
The need for effective, globally validated tools to assess and monitor communication in early childhood has led different populations to explore and adapt tools that have already been validated in other countries and languages. A promising tool to support the assessment and monitoring of early communication is the Early Communication Indicator (ECI), developed in the USA. The ECI has recently been adapted for the Portuguese population, and the aim of this paper is to describe its characteristics and report the results obtained with Portuguese children aged between 6 and 42 months, presenting evidence for its use in assessing and monitoring communication in Portuguese children at an early age. This evidence shows the sensitivity of the ECI-Portugal in capturing the changes that occur throughout the communicative development of Portuguese children in the early years, and in identifying differences between children with and without communication disorders. Further research is needed to advance the development of the ECI in the Portuguese context. Consequently, a discussion of the research and practical steps needed to move this project forward is presented.<p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/soc/0798/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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