Making a difference –<i>Better Beginnings</i>Family Literacy Program
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
Overview of Better BeginningsEarly years' research has shown that 75% of brain development occurs in the first three years of life.It is widely known that being read to from birth helps children to develop the essential pre-literacy skills needed to learn to read, and learning to read is the single most important factor in school success.Couple this with the findings of James J. Heckman (2000), who demonstrates that investment in early years reaps greater economic rewards than the same investment in later years, and there is strong evidence to suggest that reading to babies is essential for their future and also for Australia's future.With this background and recognising a gap in current services to children provided in Western Australia, the State Library of Western Australia (SLWA) developed Better Beginnings, a universal family literacy program that targets children aged 0-3 years and their families.Better Beginnings recognises early years' research and best practice and focuses on working in partnership with families and communities to support children's early literacy and learning.Better Beginnings began as a pilot program in January 2004 in six Western Australian communities (three metropolitan and three country) and later was extended to another five.The communities were selected from identified areas of need with the guidance of the then Western Australian Department for
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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