MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082869026 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.299

Development of Individual Differences in Reading: Results From Longitudinal Studies in English and Finnish.

2005· article· en· W2082869026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rauno Parrila, Kaisa Aunola, Esko Leskinen, Jari‐Erik Nurmi, John R. Kirby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReading (process)Longitudinal studyReading comprehensionDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined individual differences in reading development in English and Finnish. English-speaking Canadian children were assessed once per year in Grades 1-5, and Finnish children were assessed twice per year in Grades 1-2. Results from latent growth curve and simplex analyses showed that initial status was generally negatively associated with subsequent growth and that, although stable, individual differences were more likely to significantly decrease than to increase across the measurement points. Growth mixture models identified multiple groups of children whose reading development followed distinct patterns. The results indicate that it is possible for educational systems to significantly reduce individual differences in basic reading skills during early reading development.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations169
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational PsychologySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207