MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030019341 · doi:10.1002/icd.621

Shyness as a continuous dimension and emergent literacy in young children: is there a relation?

2009· article· en· W2030019341 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine A. Spere, Mary Ann Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFluencyShynessPhonological awarenessVocabularyLiteracyDevelopmental psychologyReading (process)Vocabulary developmentPhonemic awarenessLinguisticsAnxietyTeaching methodMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present study assessed 89 children in a short‐term longitudinal study from Junior Kindergarten (age 4–5 years) through Grade 1 (age 6–7 years) using a variety of tests of emergent literacy. Children were assessed for reading skill (a composite of word recognition, decoding, and letter‐sound knowledge), phonological awareness, and oral language (i.e. both receptive and expressive vocabulary as well as syntax and fluency). Shyness was treated as a continuous variable rather than contrasting extreme groups of shy and non‐shy children. Shyness was modestly related to vocabulary, verbal fluency, and phonological awareness. Results suggest that among young children the association of greater shyness with compromised skill development potentially extends beyond the vocabulary domain to include emergent literacy more broadly. 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfant and Child DevelopmentSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207