MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079919469 · doi:10.1080/10888438.2012.729120

Chinese Reading Development in Monolingual and Bilingual Learners: Introduction to the Special Issue

2012· article· en· W2079919469 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Studies of Reading · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)ZhàngChenLearning to readComputer sciencePsychologyLinguisticsChinaPhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue was inspired by the Research in Reading Chinese Conference held at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the University of Toronto, in 2010 to celebrate Dr. Richard C. Anderson's distinguished research career and his pioneering role in Chinese reading research. The five articles presented in this special issue cover topics related to the Chinese reading development of monolingual and bilingual learners. They include similarities and differences between Chinese and English in reading development and processes (Perfetti, Cao, & Booth, 2013 Perfetti, C., Cao, F. and Booth, J. 2013. Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: How Chinese research informs a universal science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17: 5–21. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and reading problems (McBride-Chang et al., 2013 McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Chan, W., Wong, T., Wong, A. M.-Y., Zhang, Y. and Chan, P. 2013. Poor readers of Chinese and English: Overlap, stability, and longitudinal correlates. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17: 57–70. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]), the role of visual-perceptual and visual-orthographic skills in Chinese reading (Anderson et al., 2013 Anderson, R. C., Ku, Y.-M., Li, W., Chen, X., Wu, X. and Shu, H. 2013. Learning to see the patterns in Chinese characters. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17: 41–56. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Luo, Chen, Deacon, Zhang, & Yin, 2013 Luo, Y. C., Chen, X., Deacon, S. H., Zhang, J. and Yin, L. 2013. The role of visual processing in learning to read Chinese characters. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17: 22–40. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]), and the influence of first-language semantics on second-language lexical learning (Saji & Imai, 2013 Saji, N. and Imai, M. 2013. Evolution of verb meanings in children and L2 adult learners through reorganization of an entire semantic domain: The case of Chinese carry/hold verbs. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17: 71–88. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). The findings of these articles highlight the contribution of Chinese reading research to the scientific study of reading.

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)0.001
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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.328 · 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