MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038387192 · doi:10.1002/dys.368

Morphological constancy in spelling: a comparison of children with dyslexia and typically developing children

2008· article· en· W2038387192 on OpenAlex
Derrick C. Bourassa, Rebecca Treiman

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDyslexia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingMorphemeDyslexiaPsychologyPronunciationLinguisticsDevelopmental dyslexiaTypically developingRoot (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyReading (process)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spellings of many English words follow a principle of morphological constancy. For example, musician includes the c of music, even though the pronunciation of this letter changes. With other words, such as explanation and explain, the spellings of morphemes are not retained when affixes are added. We asked whether children with dyslexia use root morphemes to aid their spelling of morphologically complex words. If so, they should sometimes produce misspellings such as 'explaination' for explanation. Our results suggest that children with dyslexia adhere to the principle of morphological constancy to the same extent as typically developing younger children of the same spelling level. In this and other ways, the spellings of older dyslexic children are remarkably similar to those of typical younger children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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