MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086352321 · doi:10.12681/ppej.46

Is rapid automatized naming automatic?

2013· article· en· W2086352321 on OpenAlexaff
George K. Georgiou, Blair Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenuePreschool and Primary Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationCoefficient of variationVariation (astronomy)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to To examine whether rapid automatized naming (RAN) reflects automatic processing, we retrospectively traced the development of RAN pause time, its standard deviation, and the coefficient of variation from Kindergarten to Grade 3. Twenty-five good readers and twenty-five poor readers were assessed on RAN Colors and Digits and their sound files were analyzed. The results indicated that there was a significant decrease across time in pause time and its standard deviation for both groups of readers. However, the coefficient of variation increased across time. In addition, the correlations between the pause time and the coefficient of variation were negative. These findings suggest that the observed improvement in RAN performance across time is not due to increased automaticity, but rather due to improved efficiency in the operation of each RAN sub-process.

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 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 score0.916
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)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreschool and Primary EducationSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207