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 article describes the current state of evidence regarding treatment intensity of print referencing intervention. Although studies of print referencing intervention demonstrate overall net positive impacts for children's emergent literacy development, researchers have yet to identify explicitly how often children should experience print referencing for these positive impacts to occur. Six print referencing intervention studies are identified in the literature and reviewed for differences in how often and how much print referencing intervention is delivered. Using the framework set out by S. F. Warren, M. E. Fey, and P. J. Yoder (2007), this article specifically discusses and compares variations in 5 treatment intensity variables (dose, dose form, dose frequency, total intervention duration, and cumulative intervention intensity) for the 6 studies of print referencing intervention. Effect-size estimates suggest a trend toward moderate effects of more intensive print referencing intervention and large effects for relatively less intensive print referencing intervention. This trend however is likely confounded by other contextual, individual, and treatment intensity factors. Therefore, suggestions for ongoing research exploring the differential effects of intensity of print referencing intervention are presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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