Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish-English and Chinese-English bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes.
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
This study examined cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish–English and Chinese–English bilinguals. Participants included 51 Spanish–English and 64 Chinese–English bilinguals. Both groups of children completed parallel measures of phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, word reading accuracy, and word reading fluency in their first language (L1) and in English, their second language (L2) in Grade 1. Word reading accuracy and word reading fluency were assessed in L1 and L2 again in Grade 2. Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy was found only in the Spanish–English bilinguals. In contrast, cross-language transfer of word reading fluency was found in both the Spanish–English bilinguals and the Chinese–English bilinguals. Our results suggest transfer of word reading accuracy is based on the structural similarities between the L1 and L2 scripts. By contrast, word reading fluency operates largely as a script-universal process. Implications for reading theory and for assessment and instruction of bilingual children are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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