One complicated extended family: the influence of alphabetic knowledge and vocabulary on phonemic awareness
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
This research evaluated possible sources of individual differences in early explicit, smaller segment phonological awareness. In particular, the unique contributions of oral vocabulary and alphabetic knowledge to phonemic awareness acquisition were examined across the first year of school. A total of 57 participants were tested in kindergarten (mean age 5 years, 8 months) and again 1 year later midway through Grade 1. Results revealed that oral vocabulary and alphabetic knowledge were correlated with concurrent larger segment phonological awareness and phonemic blending in kindergarten whereas oral vocabulary was the only measure that predicted unique variance in phonemic awareness into Grade 1. Further, this pattern of results was most pronounced for analytic (segmenting), as opposed to synthetic (blending), phonemic awareness. These results highlight the importance of different component processes to explicit, smaller segment awareness depending upon the developmental period under study and also accentuate the need to separate analytic from synthetic phonemic awareness in literacy research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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