MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550182109 · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12091

Direct and indirect effects of executive function on reading comprehension in young adults

2016· article· en· W2550182109 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Reading · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKillam TrustsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPsychologyReading comprehensionFluencyReading (process)Stroop effectVocabularyWorking memoryCognitive psychologyComprehensionTest (biology)CognitionDevelopmental psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine what components of executive function (EF) – inhibition, shifting and updating/working memory – predict reading comprehension in young adults. Ninety university students (65 females, 25 males; mean age = 21.82 years) were assessed on shifting (Planned Connections and Colour/Shape Shifting), inhibition (Colour‐Word Stroop and Number Stroop), updating/working memory (Digit Memory and Listening Span), reading fluency (Word Reading Efficiency), vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test), and reading comprehension (Nelson‐Denny Reading Test). The results of path analysis indicated that only shifting predicted directly reading comprehension. These findings extend those of previous studies showing that different EF components predict different reading outcomes and suggest that EF has a place in reading comprehension models over and above traditional predictors of reading comprehension such as reading fluency and vocabulary.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.336 · 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