MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036485030 · doi:10.1080/10409280701610622

The Early Development Instrument: Translating School Readiness Assessment Into Community Actions and Policy Planning

2007· article· en· W2036485030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Guhn, Magdalena Janus, Clyde Hertzman

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Education and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPopulationMedical educationScale (ratio)Early childhoodApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This invited special issue of Early Education and Development presents research related to the Early Development Instrument (EDI; CitationJanus & Offord, 2007), a community tool to assess children's school readiness at a population level. In this editorial introduction, we first sketch out recent trends in school readiness research that call for a contextual and whole-child assessment of school readiness. Then we provide an overview of the EDI, including a discussion of its purpose and development, as well as its large-scale international use as a community tool to monitor children's developmental outcomes at population levels. Finally, we introduce the special issue's articles, all of which present research findings from ongoing community research projects that employ the EDI to assess children's school readiness. These articles are grouped into the following thematic themes: (a) individual-level validity of the EDI, (b) school and neighborhood effects and population-level validity of the EDI, and (c) program implementation and evaluation using the EDI.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations63
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Education and DevelopmentSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207