Extra-textual talk in shared book reading: a focus on questioning
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
In this study we investigated the frequency and types of questions asked when parents read with their four-year-old children, the relationship between the frequency and types of questions parents and children asked, and the relationship between these and the children's early literacy knowledge. Forty dyads shared two narrative texts and two non-narrative texts. Overall, there were relatively few questions asked during the shared book reading. Parents asked four times as many questions as children and for the most part, questions appear to have low cognitive demand. Genre had little effect on the frequency of questions and the types of questions asked, in contrast with other research that has shown differences in interactions in shared reading of informational versus narrative texts. In terms of gender, there was very little difference in both frequency and type of questions. No significant relationships were found between the questions asked in the shared book readings and measures of children's early literacy knowledge (Test of Early Reading Ability 2 and alphabet knowledge). The study is important in that it contributes to an emerging literature that suggests a more tenuous relationship between shared book reading and children's early literacy knowledge than is sometimes assumed by educators.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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