Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few years, much attention has been dedicated to exploring the neural and cognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities in reading. Such an interest is partly due to the major socio-economic impact of these disabilities, which are estimated to affect 3-9% of school-age children and adults. The growing body of research in that domain also allows us to improve our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the acquisition of reading in normal children. A conference on this topic, held in Aix-en-Provence in November 2002, attracted more than 200 attendees from France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Canada. The conference aimed to get researchers from different fields discussing their views on current issues in language disorders and reading acquisition. The participants had a large variety of backgrounds which included neurology, neuropsychology, neuroimaging, cognitive neurosciences, cognitive and developmental psychology, psycholinguistics, linguistics and phonetics. One of the main axes of the conference was the integration of basic science and applied research based on rigorous experimental methods. This special issue of Current Psychology Letters: Behavior, Brain & Cognition, contains 11 papers selected among those presented at the meeting, and including reviews and experimental studies. A central question in this volume is to better understand why some individuals come to experience difficulties in the acquisition of reading. This question is addressed from many different perspectives, which include the role of syntax and morphology, the development of phonology, and the effects of attentional processes. The definition of subcategories in developmental dyslexia and the implications of current research for remediation are also discussed. In addition, a large place is devoted to the current debate focussing on whether developmental dyslexia is caused by language-specific factors (more specifically, a phonological deficit) as opposed to general auditory and/or visual deficits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".