MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087458578 · doi:10.1177/00222194060390040901

Retrospective Analyses of the Reading Development of Grade 4 Students with Reading Disabilities

2006· article· en· W2087458578 on OpenAlexaff
Orly Lipka, Nonie K. Lesaux, Linda S. Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhonological awarenessLiteracyLongitudinal studyReading disabilityDyslexiaLearning disabilityMathematics educationPedagogyLinguisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a longitudinal examination of the development of reading and reading-related skills of 22 Grade 4 children identified as having reading disabilities (RD) who had been followed since kindergarten. The analyses were conducted to investigate the patterns of emergence of RD as well as reading ability and risk status across the 5 years. The findings of the study are presented with an examination of the trajectories of the children with RD as compared to Grade 4 typical readers (matched for grade, gender, language status, and school) with a similar profile on literacy skills in kindergarten. The results demonstrate the heterogeneous nature of the trajectory of RD in school-age children; although many of the children with RD were at risk in kindergarten, there was a subsample who did not demonstrate reading and phonological difficulties until the third and fourth grades.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations119
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Learning DisabilitiesSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207