MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The longer‐term effects of reading interventions delivered by experienced teaching assistants

2009· article· en· W1979628259 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

VenueSupport for Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonicsReading (process)Intervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyResponse to interventionTerm (time)Special educationMedicinePrimary educationPedagogyLinguisticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the responsiveness of children at risk of reading problems in Year 1 to a phonics intervention delivered by teaching assistants (TAs). Based on their non‐word decoding skills in the immediate post‐tests, 74 children were clustered together at the high end as ‘treatment responders’ ( n = 49) and at the low end as ‘treatment non‐responders’ ( n = 25) and were followed up at the end of Key Stage 1, 16 months after the intervention finished. The treatment‐responder group was superior in all areas of rated attainment and, unlike the non‐responders, achieved national averages in most teacher ratings of attainment. These results suggest that experienced TAs can help two out of three children at risk of reading difficulties.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.334 · 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