MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137835219

Effects of a Culturally Responsive Speech and Language Intervention for Students of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Heritage.

2011· article· en· W2137835219 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kent McIntosh, Susanna Mathews, Carmen Gietz, Leslie D. MacKay, Janet Pelser, Inga Mah, Jacquie Rowe, Carolyn Vogt, Jim Edgecombe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIntervention (counseling)VocabularyCurriculumHeritage languageIndigenous languageCulturally appropriatePsychologyVocabulary developmentPedagogyMathematics educationTeaching methodMedicineLinguisticsFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the effectiveness of a speech and language intervention that was designed to be culturally responsive and adapted to provide explicit language instruction. Participants included all 774 kindergarten students from a mid-sized rural school district in British Columbia. Seventy-seven students screened as at risk received the intervention, and the remaining students participated in the regular kindergarten curriculum. Results indicated statistically significant effects of the intervention on language and vocabulary skills. No differential effects were observed between students of Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage. Results are discussed in terms of culturally responsive and explicit instruction for early language development. Key words: early intervention, language intervention, cultural responsiveness, Aboriginal education

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207