MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083363668 · doi:10.1075/wll.9.2.02mak

Interactive reading

2006· article· en· W2083363668 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

VenueWritten Language & Literacy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyPerspective (graphical)Reading comprehensionInterpretation (philosophy)ElaborationLinguisticsComprehensionDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative and descriptive study partly explores a crucial aspect of child development, that is, story comprehension seen from the perspective of children’s elaboration of causal relations among story elements. The researcher met with 12 francophone preschool-aged girls (3;6 to 6;0 years old) from Québec City. At key points in the causal chain of story events, the researcher stopped reading to listen to what the children had to say about the construction of the relations they had elaborated until then. After reading, the same children answered four inference questions. Based on analyses which showed that children make causal relations more explicit during reading rather than after reading, it is reasonable to believe that dialogue during reading fosters the complexification of the expression of causal relations by preschoolers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.289 · 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