MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974199806 · doi:10.1002/berj.3177

The Simple View of Reading as a framework for national literacy initiatives: a hierarchical model of pupil‐level and classroom‐level factors

2015· article· en· W1974199806 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Savage, Giovani Burgos, Eileen Wood, Noëlla Piquette

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Educational Research Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Language and Literacy Research Network
KeywordsMultilevel modelReading comprehensionPsychologyLiteracyFraming (construction)Mathematics educationComprehensionPupilGrade levelReading (process)Multilevel modellingVariance (accounting)Computer sciencePedagogyMathematicsStatisticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Simple View of Reading ( SVR ) describes Reading Comprehension as the product of distinct child‐level variance in decoding (D) and linguistic comprehension ( LC ) component abilities. When used as a model for educational policy, distinct classroom‐level influences of each of the components of the SVR model have been assumed, but have not yet been demonstrated in basic research. Hierarchical linear modelling ( HLM ) of the SVR is thus explored here in a longitudinal experiment with 701 children in 50 grade 1 (year 1) classrooms. Multilevel results showed independent distinct classroom‐level effects for both D and LC with up to 68% of the classroom‐level shared variance explained by these two components. Overall, the model fit thus suggests that the SVR is a good model for framing the underlying structure of classroom‐level literacy attainment in grade 1.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Educational Research JournalSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207