MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284212476 · doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1131157

Using latent-class analysis to examine the influence of kindergarten children's perspectives of school on literacy and self-regulation outcomes

2016· article· en· W2284212476 on OpenAlexaff
Kristy Timmons, Janette Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Child Development and Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of International Science and Engineering
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyLiteracyLatent class modelReading (process)Class (philosophy)Academic achievementMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we explored the influence of kindergarten children's perspectives of school on their literacy and self-regulation outcomes. Children's early perspectives were captured in a three-question, finger-puppet interview. Responses to the interview questions were coded thematically as being academic and/or social in nature, and were analysed using latent-class analysis. Once children's responses were characterized into classes, further analyses were conducted to understand the application of these perspectives to direct assessments of early reading and writing and self-regulation abilities. Children with less clear perspectives, who mixed academic and social responses, had the lowest performance on all academic measures. Findings add to the existing literature while offering an innovative analytic strategy for examining relationships between children's perspectives and kindergarten outcomes.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Child Development and CareSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207