MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964030037 · doi:10.1037/cjbs2007005

Rendement en lecture et vitesse du traitement de l'information chez les enfants de 6 à 8 ans.

2007· article· fr· W1964030037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Véronique Parent, Michel Loranger, Katia Sirois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présente étude vise à éprouver des mesures de vitesse du traitement de l'information (VTI) en vérifiant leurs relations potentielles avec le rendement en lecture chez des enfants de 6 à 8 ans. Cent cinq enfants participent à l'étude. Les mesures de vitesse sont tirées de trois instruments, soit les Tests de rendement cognitif pour adultes présentant une déficience intellectuelle (TRCA ; Loranger & Pépin, 1997), le test Temps de réaction des Tests de rendement cognitif pour enfants (TRCE ; Loranger & Pépin, 1998) et le Rapid automatized naming test (RAN ; Denckla & Rudel, 1976). Le rendement en lecture est quant à lui évalué par le Test d'habiletés en lecture (THAL ; Pépin & Loranger, 1999) et par le Test phonologique (Melançon, Ziarko & Gagnon, 1996, dans Melançon, 1997). Les résultats des analyses de corrélation canonique indiquent I'existence de relations modérées (.66 et .55) entre les différents regroupements de mesures de vitesse et le rendement en lecture. Les résultats démontrent donc que la VTI entretient des relations significatives avec le rendement en lecture.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207