MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The development of reading interest and its relation to reading ability

2010· article· en· W2159059011 on OpenAlex
John R. Kirby, Angela S. Ball, Bob Geier, Rauno Parrila, Lesly Wade‐Woolley

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Reading · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyReading rateRelation (database)Multilevel modelDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsReading comprehensionComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of interest in reading and its relationship to reading ability was examined longitudinally in 117 children in Grades 1–3. Interest in reading was measured by eight items from the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. Less able readers had lower interest in reading, but their development was parallel to that of more able readers. Interest in reading in Grade 1 was weakly correlated with Grade 3 reading ability, but correlations were lower for interest measured in Grades 2 and 3. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated weak and inconsistent effects of reading interest on reading ability after controlling general cognitive ability, SES, phonological awareness and naming speed. It is concluded that interest in reading has only a weak relationship to reading ability in the early elementary years, and that much of that relationship overlaps with the effects of other more powerful predictors.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.328 · 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