MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517120669

Les relations entre la lecture et l'écriture: Représentations d'élèves de différents niveaux scolaires et de différents niveaux d'habileté

2002· article· fr· W1517120669 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jacinthe Giguère, Jocelyne Giasson, Claude Simad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Linguistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)SpellingPsychologyReading comprehensionWritten languageMathematics educationGrade levelHumanitiesPedagogyLinguisticsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to identify how students of different grade levels and of different ability levels perceive reading-writing relationships. A questionnaire was administered to 439 Quebec students from four grade levels: Grade 3, Grade 6, Grade 9 and Grade 11. An interview was also conducted with 18 students from each of these grade levels. Students' school report scores in written comprehension and production have been used as indicators of their ability level. Result analysis reveals that students perceive more positively the effects of reading on writing than the effects of writing on reading. It also appears that Grade 3 students make more comments on reading/spelling links whereas Grade 9 and 11 students realize more how writing tales helps them to understand other texts of the same type. The study further indicates that good readers and writers perceive more links between these two language activities than the poor ones. All the results confirm the importance of making students more aware of the multiple dimensions of the reading-writing relationship.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied LinguisticsSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207