MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060174009 · doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0604_05

Rapid Naming and Phonemic Awareness: Contributions to Reading, Spelling, and Orthographic Knowledge

2002· article· en· W2060174009 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

VenueScientific Studies of Reading · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingDictationPhonemic awarenessPsychologyReading (process)Phonological awarenessCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The double-deficit hypothesis suggests that deficient skills on two dimensions, rapid naming and phonemic awareness, are associated with poor reading. We studied the reading, spelling, and orthographic skills of Grade 3 children who met our criteria for double asset (DA), single phonological deficit (PD), single naming speed deficit (NSD), and double deficit (DD) groups. Analyses of variance revealed main effects of each factor, oftentimes modified by significant interactions, on the varied achievement measures. All deficit groups performed below the DA children. Compared to children with NSD, children with PD (a) were less accurate decoders, (b) were faster readers, (c) had weaker spelling dictation, and (d) had comparably poor spelling recognition scores. Children with DD showed a mixed pattern of stronger, equal, or weaker skills compared to younger reading level controls.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.307 · 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