MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021017180 · doi:10.1002/icd.628

Precursors of language ability and academic performance: an inter‐generational, longitudinal study of at‐risk children

2009· article· en· W2021017180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Campisi, Lisa A. Serbin, Dale M. Stack, Alex E. Schwartzman, Jane E. Ledingham

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyLanguage development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current investigation examined whether inter‐generational transfer of risk could be revealed through mothers' and preschool‐aged children's expressive language, and whether continuity of risk persisted in these children's academic abilities, 3 years later. Participating families were drawn from the Concordia Longitudinal Risk Project, a prospective, longitudinal investigation of French‐speaking families from low‐SES Montreal neighbourhoods. At Time 1, mothers' history of childhood social withdrawal was shown to predict mothers' child‐directed language. Mothers' language complexity was also shown to be predictive of preschoolers' expressive language and was found to mediate the relationship between maternal social withdrawal and child language. At Time 2, children's language‐related academic abilities were predicted by their expressive language at preschool age. The findings support an inter‐generational continuity of risk operating through language complexity and extending to children's performance in language‐related academic abilities at school age. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfant and Child DevelopmentSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207