Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the thesis Motivational Reading Projects and Programs for Boys we studied boys reading motivation as a factor of reading comprehension, which is a part of reading literacy. Reading motivation is the first condition for efficient reading comprehension with boys, therefore less motivation correlates to their lower reading achievements. We studied the achievements of reading literacy with boys, the factors of reading motivation connected with gender and the causes for differences in reading between boys and girls. We defined the concept and the ways to increase reading motivation with boys and were thereby interested in the role of the educational system (the teachers and the school library). To increase reading motivation, which will ensure better achievements in education, with boys in practice, we studied programs and projects, suited for the increase of reading motivation of literary texts with boys, from five countries (Slovenia, Canada – Ontario, Australia, Germany and Finland). They are based on similar strategies to encourage boys with reading: the use of active methods, ICT, integration of male reading role models and reading materials, popular with boys. The main obstacles of programs and projects are the excessive orientation on female and male stereotypes and noncompliance with the heterogeneity of the male and female population. Despite the assurance of the institutions preforming the programs (schools, public libraries, research centres) that the projects and programs are successful, there are no surveys proving that statement. New research of the efficiency of the established projects, which will provide the answers on how to help boys and girls in the way one gender will not be in disadvantage of the other, is necessary. Essential are also alterations in education and training of teachers, who are mostly not aware of the reading problems with boys and therefore do not take appropriate measures. \n \n
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".