MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108312963 · doi:10.5539/ies.v8n9p79

Teaching Reading for Students with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2108312963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ghaleb H. Alnahdi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyIntellectual disabilityTeaching methodMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review of the literature related to instructional strategies to improve reading skills for students with intellectual disabilities was conducted. Studies reviewed were within three categories; early reading approaches, comprehensive approaches, and one method approach. It was concluded that students with intellectual disabilities are in need to receive very intense practice and instruction to improve their reading skills, and it should be provided explicitly, systematically, and consistently. Recommendations for future studies are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207