MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984375521 · doi:10.1177/0829573513507419

Cognitive and Reading Profiles of Two Samples of Canadian First Nations Children

2013· article· en· W1984375521 on OpenAlexaffabout
Troy Janzen, Donald H. Saklofske, J. P. Das

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReading (process)CognitionDevelopmental psychologyConsistency (knowledge bases)PhonologyPhonological awarenessCognitive psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two Canadian First Nations samples of Grades 3 and 4 children were assessed for cognitive processing, word reading, and phonological awareness skills. Both groups were from Plains Cree rural reservations in different provinces. The two groups showed significant differences on several key cognitive variables although there were more similarities than differences. Groups, separately and combined, showed a significant relationship between decoding, phonological awareness variables, word decoding, and successive processing that has also been observed among children from the mainstream culture. In general, the cognitive processing, reading, and reading subskills of First Nations children are, on average, below the norms for these measures. The findings are discussed in terms of reading disability identification practices from a Discrepancy Model and the Consistency–Discrepancy Model using PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive) theory among First Nations children.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207