Processos cognitivos na leitura de palavras em crianças: relações com compreensão e tempo de leitura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A leitura é composta por múltiplos processos interdependentes. Este estudo analisou o uso preferencial de uma das rotas de leitura (Modelo Cognitivo de Dupla-Rota) e as possíveis relações com compreensão e tempo de leitura em 76 crianças de segunda e terceira séries do Ensino Fundamental de escola particular. Avaliou-se a leitura de palavras isoladas e a compreensão e tempo de leitura textual. Identificou-se quatro grupos segundo as habilidades de leitura de palavras: bons leitores por ambas as rotas; maus leitores por ambas as rotas; leitores preferencialmente lexicais e leitores preferencialmente fonológicos. Os primeiros foram os mais rápidos na leitura textual. Os grupos não diferiram significativamente em compreensão textual, exceto na 3ª série. Concluiu-se que ambas as rotas de leitura são funcionais na amostra, porém a rota fonológica parece estar melhor desenvolvida do que a rota lexical, que está em expansão, sugerindo um processo de desenvolvimento das habilidades de leitura.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".