Normative Nasalance Scores for French-Speaking Children in Quebec: A Tale of 2 Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To establish normative nasalance scores for the Nasometer II for children speaking Quebec French. Design: Prospective study using a randomly selected sample of children with typical speech. Setting: Two children’s hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada. Participants: Eighty-eight children with typical speech, language and hearing development, aged between 6;00 and 11;11 years, were enrolled at the Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine in Montreal and the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval in Quebec City, Canada. Outcome Measure: Mean nasalance scores. Results: Mean nasalance scores were obtained for oral vowels, nasal vowels, repeated syllables, oral sentences, a nasal sentence, mixed sentences as well as a short text. While there were no meaningful significant effects of sex and age on the nasalance scores, most nasalance scores obtained at the hospital site in Montreal were statistically significantly higher than in Quebec City. Mean nasalance scores, standard deviations and theoretical critical threshold values are provided and can be used for clinical assessment and research. Conclusions: Nasalance scores differences according to hospital sites may be attributable to dialectal differences, to differences between the nasalance scores obtained by the nasometers in the 2 clinics, or to a combination of the 2. In future research, diagnostic cutoff scores for different nasal resonance disorders can be developed based on these normative scores.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".