MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071038289 · doi:10.1017/s1355617712001579

Effect of Preschool Working Memory, Language, and Narrative Abilities on Inferential Comprehension at School-Age in Children with Spina Bifida Myelomeningocele and Typically Developing Children

2013· article· en· W2071038289 on OpenAlexafffund
Meredith M. Pike, Paul R. Swank, Heather Taylor, Susan H. Landry, Marcia A. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyComprehensionReading comprehensionCognitionMediationWorking memorySpina bifidaNeuropsychologyCognitive psychologyReading (process)LinguisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with spina bifida myelomeningocele (SBM) are more likely to display a pattern of good-decoding/poor comprehension than their neurologically intact peers. The goals of the current study were to (1) examine the cognitive origins of one of the component skills of comprehension, bridging inferences, from a developmental perspective and (2) to test the effects of those relations on reading comprehension achievement. Data from a sample of children with SBM and a control group (n = 78) who participated in a longitudinal study were taken from age 36-month and 9.5-year time points. A multiple mediation model provided evidence that three preschool cognitive abilities (working memory/inhibitory control, oral comprehension, narrative recall), could partially explain the relation between group and bridging inference skill. A second mediation model supported that each of the 36-month abilities had an indirect effect on reading comprehension through bridging inference skill. Findings contribute to an understanding of both typical and atypical comprehension development, blending theories from the developmental, cognitive, and neuropsychological literature.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207