MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162186852 · doi:10.1177/0022219408326210

Revisiting the “Simple View of Reading” in a Group of Children With Poor Reading Comprehension

2008· article· en· W2162186852 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionPsychologyReading (process)ComprehensionListening comprehensionCognitive psychologyPhonological awarenessActive listeningLinguisticsDecoding methodsDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Gough and Tunmer's Simple View of Reading, Reading Comprehension = Decoding (D) x Listening Comprehension (C). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the model with a sample of First Nations children, known to have average decoding and listening comprehension but poor reading comprehension. In addition, the authors examined the contribution of naming speed and phonological awareness to reading comprehension beyond the effects of D and C. Consistent with the findings of previous studies, the children exhibited poor reading comprehension despite average performance in decoding and listening comprehension, a finding that challenges the simple view of reading. The results also revealed that an additive model (D + C) fitted the data equally well as a product model (D x C). Neither naming speed nor phonological awareness accounted for unique variance.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · 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