MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408562511 · doi:10.14288/1.0077262

The effect of training in gross motor and fine motor skills on the improvement of reading in a selected group of grade one students.

2011· article· en· W2408562511 on OpenAlex
David E. Welch

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation in Diverse Contexts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross motor skillReading (process)Motor skillGroup (periodic table)PsychologyMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of special motor training on a group of grade one pupils who were having difficulty in reading. Ten grade one students were selected from the Sir Richard McBride Elementary School in Vancouver. These pupils were classed as potentially poor readers on the basis of the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test and the Winter Haven Perceptual Copy Forms Test. A matched group of ten pupils, which would act as a control group, was selected from the Annex to the McBride School. The two groups were matched according to age, sex, and the results of the reading readiness s test and the perceptual form test. The experimental group received sixteen weeks of special motor training which was carried on for one hour a day, five days a week. At the completion of the training period all subjects were given the Stanford Achievement Test and the Winter Haven Perceptual Form Test. The differences between the means of the raw scores of the two groups were statistically analyzed. The t-test was used and the t required for significance at the .05 level of confidence was 2.10. The t's obtained indicated a very significant improvement of the experimental group over the control group in reading ability. The following indicated the obtained t on each item of the reading test plus the perceptual form test. 1. Word Meaning 10.38 2. Paragraph Meaning 5.35 3. Spelling 5.83 4. Word Study Skills 4.04 5. Perceptual Form 11.11 There was no significant difference in vocabulary. Because of certain experimental conditions which could not be controlled, it could not definitely be indicated that the improvement was due entirely to the motor skills program. The apparent lack of direct relationship between levels of perceptual ability and reading achievement raises several questions. Further information is needed before the reason for apparent differences between improvement in perceptual and reading skills following a special motor training program can be understood.

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 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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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