MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167677820 · doi:10.5206/eei.v17i2.7606

An Additive Simple View of Reading Describesthe Performance of Good and Poor Readersin Higher Education

2007· article· en· W2167677820 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionReading (process)ComprehensionPsychologySimple (philosophy)Point (geometry)Exploratory researchMathematics educationReciprocal teachingCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Gough and Tunmer (1986), in a ‘Simple View of Reading’ (SVR), Reading comprehension (RC) = Decoding (D) x Linguistic Comprehension (C).To further evaluate this model, this paper describes an exploratory study of the performance of 60 university students, the majority of whom received academic accommodations at university to compensate for significant reading delays. Results showed that both D and C predicted reading comprehension well. An additive model (D + C) fitted the data no better than a product model (D x C). Similar results were obtained when cumulative grade point average rather than reading comprehension was used as the dependent variable. D but not RC was correlated with phonological awareness and (less reliably) with rapid naming ability. Implications of these findings for the Simple View of Reading and for the support of university students with reading problems are considered.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.339 · 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