Reading Skills and Function of Problem Behavior in Typical School Settings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined the relation between variables maintaining problem behavior and reading performance for elementary-age students. Participants were 51 students in Grades 4, 5, and 6 who had received two or more office discipline referrals in 2003-2004. Students were grouped by teacher-indicated function of problem behavior. The prevalence of behavioral function for students in general and special education is reported, and differences were determined for the number of discipline referrals and oral reading fluency rates. Chi-square analysis indicated differences in base rates of function between students in general and special education. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated significant differences in oral reading fluency by function of problem behavior, and follow-up analyses indicated significantly lower fluency scores for students whose indicated function was escape from academic tasks. These findings provide evidence for a coercion model in the classroom. The results are discussed in terms of the relevance of using functional behavior assessment and behavior support with general education populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it