Reading Proficiency and Comparability of Mathematics and Science Scores for Students From English and Non-English Backgrounds: An International Perspective
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
The purpose of this research is to examine the comparability of mathematics and science scores for students from English language backgrounds (ELB) and non-English language backgrounds (NELB). We examine the relationship between English reading proficiency and performance on mathematics and science assessments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The findings indicate a strong relationship with reading proficiency accounting for up to 43% of the variance in mathematics and up to 79% in science. In all comparisons, ELB students either outperformed NELB students or performed at the same level. However, when statistical adjustments were made for reading proficiency, in both mathematics and science, the score gap between the groups became statistically non-significant in three out of the four countries. These findings point to differences in score meaning in mathematics and science assessments and limitations in comparing performances of ELB and NELB.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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