MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320539741 · doi:10.20360/g22p4h

The Factors Contributing to Teacher Predictions of Spelling Ability, and the Accuracy of Their Assessments

2016· article· en· W2320539741 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kendall Kolne, Laura M. Gonnerman, Alexandra Marquis, Phaedra Royle, Susan Rvachew

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre for Research on Brain Language and Music
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingLiteracyPsychologyVariance (accounting)Mathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyPedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, teachers of kindergarten and Grade 1 French-speaking students indicated the likelihood their students would develop later writing difficulties. Results showed that language measures, language background, the education levels of parents, and home literacy practices predicted whether children would be identified as at-risk. Moreover children’s oral language skills accounted for even more of the variance in teacher ratings than other variables. Spelling performance assessed 1-year later from a subset of children indicated that the teacher predictions were accurate. Thus, teachers appear to be an effective source for predicting children’s future literacy performance.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207