Differential Effects of Context and Feedback on Orthographic Learning: How Good Is Good Enough?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, students in Grade 2 read different sets of words under 4 experimental training conditions (context/feedback, isolation/feedback, context/no-feedback, isolation/no-feedback). Training took place over 10 trials, followed by a spelling test and a delayed reading posttest. Reading in context boosted reading accuracy initially; in contrast, the external support garnered from feedback resulted in heightened reading accuracy throughout training, as well as 1 week later. Different patterns were noted in spelling transfer; first, there was no effect of reading feedback on spelling at posttest. Second, the highest spelling scores were observed when children practiced reading words in isolation versus in context. In sum, providing feedback and/or context helps children read words accurately, which in turn seems to create orthographic representations that are “good enough” to support reading accuracy. However, reading in isolation seems to produce orthographic representations that are higher in quality, and therefore better able to support precise spelling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it