MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736452677 · doi:10.17239/l1esll-2007.07.03.01

Linguistic factors and invented spelling in children: The case of French beginners in children

2007· article· en· W2736452677 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐France Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueL1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingLinguisticsNorm (philosophy)PsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most studies in the field of first writing experiences in kindergarten have focused on the behaviour of young English-language writers (Treiman & Bourassa, 2000). By considering increasingly acknowledged linguistic factors in spelling development (Seymour, Aro & Erskine, 2003), the present study seeks to contribute to existing studies of young French-language children in Europe by examining the case of young French-Canadian writers (North America). Drawing on 202 kindergarten children, this study seeks to provide a better understanding of the impact of linguistic characteristics on the production of graphemes in an invented spelling task involving the writing of six words. Firstly, it analyzes the “word” effect on the participants’ capacity to produce the appropriate graphemes to represent the phonological information of words (exhaustiveness of the graphemes). Secondly, there is an analysis of unconventional graphemes in order to identify the causes of the deviation from the expected norm. Generally speaking, the findings support the relevance of taking into account the particularities of written French in the spelling development of young French-language children as well as the constructivist view that deviations from the norm are often indicative of difficulties arising from the nature of the writing system to be learned.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL1 Educational Studies in Language and LiteratureSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207