MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119587501 · doi:10.1177/00222194070400050801

Innovative Programs for Improvement in Reading Through Cognitive Enhancement

2007· article· en· W2119587501 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

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial educationPsychologyReading (process)CognitionMultivariate analysis of variancePhonological awarenessDevelopmental psychologyMathematics educationPedagogyLiteracyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty-five Grade 3 students from a reservation school in Western Canada were divided into two remedial groups and a no-risk control group. One remedial group was given a classroom-administered cognitive enhancement program (COGENT) throughout the school year. The second group received COGENT for the first half of the year followed by a pull-out cognitive-based reading enhancement program (PREP). Children were assessed across phonological awareness, rapid naming, reading, and cognitive ability at the beginning of the year, mid-term, and at the end of the school year. MANOVA results showed a significant interaction for reading measures, with students receiving classroom intervention over the school year making the greatest gains. Results are discussed in terms of group, remediation program, and individual participant improvements.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.330 · 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