MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580485518 · doi:10.1075/resla.29.2.09fer

Reading comprehension

2016· article· en· W2580485518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aline Ferreira, Alexandra Gottardo, Christine Javier, John W. Schwieter, Fanli Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsReading comprehensionVocabularyReading (process)Dominance (genetics)PsychologyLanguage assessmentComprehensionFirst language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of first language (L1) skills in second language (L2) achievement is often investigated to assist learners in acquiring their L2. There are several factors that may influence potential relations among Spanish and English measures (e.g., age of L2 acquisition, social status, among others). This study investigates relations among L1 and L2 variables for language learners. Specifically, it focuses on relations among oral language (vocabulary), reading (word reading and reading comprehension) variables and sociocultural variables (language dominance, acculturation, socio-economic status) in Spanish-English bilinguals, all of whom were attending school in a large metropolitan, English-speaking region in Canada. Results showed that in both English and Spanish, reading and oral language variables were related. Reading comprehension was related to word reading and vocabulary in the given language. Additionally, reading comprehension in Spanish was related to dominance in that language and to affiliation with the heritage culture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.013

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied LinguisticsSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207