MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185248945 · doi:10.2466/15.10.pms.121c21x5

Does Dyslexia Develop from Left-Eye Dominance?

2015· review· en· W2185248945 on OpenAlexaff
David S. Mather, Todd Milford, Lona M. McRae

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslexiaPsychologySpellingCategorizationDysfunctional familyDominance (genetics)Developmental psychologyCognitive psychologyLateralization of brain functionBiological theories of dyslexiaDevelopmental dyslexiaOcular dominanceRight hemisphereMinimal Brain DysfunctionReading (process)LinguisticsClinical psychologyNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this theoretical analysis and synthesis is to indicate how left-eye sighting dominance may lead to reading failure through dysfunctional right hemisphere letter encoding. Differing compensatory strategies are postulated to lead to outcomes that include the development of the phonologically impaired and phonologically proficient subtypes of dyslexia as well as specific spelling disability. Evidence is presented indicating that these disorders might be prevented by delaying the introduction of letter writing until the age of 8 years. Early childhood speech categorization in children genetically at-risk of developing dyslexia is also considered from this perspective. Convergent support for this premature writing hypothesis is provided by a comparison with the development of the left-hand inverted writing posture.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207