MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Literacy Instruction, SES, and Word‐Reading Achievement in English‐Language Learners and Children with English as a First Language: A Longitudinal Study

2004· article· en· W2059689962 on OpenAlex

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

VenueLearning Disabilities Research and Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusPsychologyReading (process)LiteracyDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyLanguage developmentAcademic achievementMathematics educationLinguisticsPedagogyPopulationDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Socioeconomic gradients and growth‐mixture model trajectories of word‐reading achievement were examined from kindergarten to Grade 5 in all the children who entered kindergarten within a school district and started receiving literacy‐intensive instruction from that point on. In kindergarten, the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and word reading was significant in two of the three subgradients identified in English‐language learners (ELL), and in the only gradient identified in children with English as first language (L1). With more instruction, SES effects progressively disappeared and ELL and L1 gradients became identical. The trajectories showed that ELL and L1 children of middle‐SES level improved similarly as they progressed through Grade 5. However, at the lowest and highest end of the SES spectrum, the ELL children improved more than the L1 even though in kindergarten they were the most at risk for reading failure. The results suggest that the literacy‐intensive program may have reduced the negative influence of SES on word‐reading development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.353 · 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