MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975621127 · doi:10.1177/0016986207311156

Twice-Exceptional Students' Use of Metacognitive Skills on a Comprehension Monitoring Task

2008· article· en· W1975621127 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

VenueGifted Child Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionComprehensionPsychologyVocabularySentenceTask (project management)Reading comprehensionCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMathematics educationCognitionLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boys identified as learning-disabled gifted or twice exceptional, at two different grade levels (5th or 6th grades, and 11th or 12th grades), were asked to read a history text with unknown vocabulary words, internal inconsistencies, and prior knowledge violations inserted to make immediate comprehension difficult. The students were asked to read one sentence at a time and report their thoughts verbally. Their verbalizations were analyzed for evidence of how they used metacognitive skills. The older students actively monitored and evaluated their comprehension as they tried to make sense of the text but were more willing to accept problematic text. The younger students were not as active in monitoring their comprehension, but they were less likely to accept the prior knowledge violations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.278 · 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