MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond language borders: orthographic processing and word reading in Spanish–English bilinguals

2011· article· en· W1924607882 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Reading · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Orthographic projectionPsychologyLinguisticsOrthographyScripting languageComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of an empirical test of the hypothesis that transfer of orthographic processing to reading occurs when the scripts under acquisition are written with the same unit (specifically, the same alphabet). We tested 97 Spanish–English bilingual children in Grades 4 and 7. We measured mother's education level, verbal and nonverbal abilities, rapid automatised naming and phonological awareness as control variables, as well as orthographic processing and reading in both of the children's languages. First, there was a relationship between orthographic processing and reading within both English and Spanish reading, a finding that is novel for the more transparent script of Spanish. Second, orthographic processing assessed in Spanish was related to English reading, even after substantive controls. This pattern of results offers support for the idea that orthographic processing transfers to reading across languages, when the scripts are written with the same unit.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.351 · 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