Characteristics and influence of home literacy environment in early childhood-centered literacy orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The home literacy environment (HLE) and joint parent–child book reading are key factors in children’s language and literacy acquisition. Child-centered literacy orientation (CCLO) refers to the child’s level of engagement in literacy events. Aim: To describe the HLE and identify demographic and HLE variables associated with a poor CCLO at 12 months of age. Methods: Parents of Singaporean children enrolled in the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO; n = 1152, birth cohort 2009–2010) completed a childhood literacy questionnaire at 12 months to obtain scores on HLE (0–17) and CCLO (0–6). Logistic regression analyses were employed to identify predictors of low CCLO. Results: Parents of 525 children completed the questionnaire. Mothers were the main caregivers in half the households. Mandarin was the main language (34%). Majority of the respondents had a library card that was used less than weekly, and had fewer than 10 children’s books. 18% of parents read to the child daily, of whom one-quarter read at bedtime. Amongst half of the families who had a CCLO score of 0, two-thirds had the lowest HLE scores (0–2). Correlational analyses indicated significant association between HLE with CCLO at 12 months ( p < 0.001). Non-English speaking caregivers and mothers who had only completed primary education were at high risk of a poor 12-month CCLO. Conclusion: A literacy-rich home environment is associated with 12-month child-centered literacy orientation. Pediatricians and early years’ professionals may be able to promote benefits of literacy related activities to families at risk of poor child-centered literacy orientation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".