Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English.
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 longitudinal study examined the performance of poor comprehenders on several reading-related abilities in the late elementary school years. We identified 3 groups of readers in Grade 5 who were matched on word reading accuracy and speed, nonverbal cognitive ability, and age: unexpected poor comprehenders, expected average comprehenders, and unexpected good comprehenders. We compared these groups in Grade 5 and, retrospectively, in Grade 3. The 3 groups performed similarly on phonological awareness, naming speed, and orthographic processing tasks but differed in morphological awareness, even when vocabulary was controlled statistically. Unexpected poor comprehenders performed more poorly than expected average comprehenders in morphological derivation at Grade 5 but not in Grade 3; in contrast, expected average comprehenders performed more poorly than unexpected good comprehenders at Grade 3, but these groups did not differ in Grade 5. Our findings suggest that poor morphological awareness contributes to reading comprehension difficulties and that children with different reading comprehension profiles may learn morphology at different rates. © 2011 American Psychological Association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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