MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124109939 · doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20150406.12

A Cross-Sectional Study of Reading Rocks: An Approach to Support and Motivate Vulnerable Readers

2015· article· en· W2124109939 on OpenAlexaff
Sydney Kerr, Hilary Scruton, John K. McNamara

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Applied Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)FluencyPhonicsLiteracyPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyPrimary educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study explores the achievement gains associated with Reading Rocks, a literacy program to support vulnerable readers between the ages of 6 and 12. The Reading Rocks program is designed based on literacy frameworks of phonics, sight words, and fluency. In addition to this, the Reading Rocks program is a one-to-one tutoring program that holds to the principles of direct, explicit instruction – a service delivery model promoted by the National Reading Panel. The current paper describes the Reading Rocks program along with its foundation principles and also demonstrates the results of a cross-sectional study of fifty children participating in the program. The paper concludes with educational and policy-based implications.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Applied PsychologySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207