Implicit and Explicit Awareness of a Phonics Rule in the Word Recognition of Students With and Without Learning Disabilities
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 study investigates the ability of students with and without learning disabilities to learn a phonics rule implicitly and the ability of these students to report accurately about the rule verbally. Many researchers have argued that implicit learning denotes a form of learning that occurs without intention and results in adequate performance, but is not available to consciousness and so not verbalizable (Reber, 1993). Others have suggested that this inability to verbalize may not be as definite as originally thought (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). This study examined the implicit learning and explicit knowledge capabilities of students between the ages of 10 and 12 with and without learning disabilities. Students acquired knowledge implicitly about the pronunciation of pseudo words that were governed by one of two phonics rules. They were then asked to verbalize explicitly about the acquired knowledge. Results indicate that implicit knowledge capabilities for all students were not significantly different. However, there were significant differences between students with and without learning disabilities on explicit knowledge scores.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it