MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989408086

Articulatory, perceptual, and phonological determinants of accurate production of s

2006· dissertation· en· W6989408086 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArticulation (sociology)Speech productionPhonologyPhonological rulePhonological developmentPerceptionProduction (economics)Speech soundRepetition (rhetorical device)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children's speech sound errors may reflect deficits in acoustic-phonetic, articulatory-phonetic, or phonological knowledge of those sounds. The purpose of the current study was to explore the factors believed to contribute to accurate articulation of /s/ in children with typically developing speech. Forty-eight children in their pre-kindergarten or kindergarten year participated. Acousticphonetic knowledge was assessed using a computer game targeting identification of correct and incorrect productions of /s/. Articulatory-phonetic skill was evaluated using maximum repetition tasks and by assessing stimulability for /s/. Phonological knowledge was assessed by examining the acoustic cues used by children to distinguish their productions of /s/ and /theta/. Acoustic-phonetic knowledge and phonological knowledge were each found to explain a small but significant amount of the variance in articulation accuracy. Three different perspectives regarding the relative importance of perceptual and articulatory skills in the development of phonological knowledge are discussed. Clinical implications of the results are considered.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207