Children's Story Retelling and Comprehension Using a New Narrative Resource
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 used the Strong Narrative Assessment Procedure (SNAP) to examine story retelling in children. The skills assessed include story grammar, comprehension, story length, and retelling errors. The 6i participants (grade 2-6) we.re randomly assigned to one of three stories that were then seen and heard. Each child. responded. to lo comprehension questions after retelling the story. Analysis of the transcripts revealed an age effect in retelling Internal Responses, and an age-related trend in reporting Attempts. As well, girls outperformed boys when answering inferential comprehension questions. Importantly, the results show that the SNAP stimulus stories are not equivalent, thus limiting their usefulness for test-retest purposes. These results support expected age differences in story structure as well as the relatively stronger verbal working memory in girls. Issues that relate to the use of the SNAP for assessing children's narrative skills are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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