A Cognitive Framework for Tracing the Roots of Reading Disabilities Among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, we first review the literature on the cognitive and linguistic deficits associated with dyslexia and poor reading comprehension in children and adults, and then we present data from a mixed methods study with two university students (J.W. and L.G.) experiencing diverse reading problems. The results of the mixed methods study revealed divergent patterns of deficits. J.W. experienced difficulties in vocabulary and simultaneous processing. In contrast, L.G. experienced difficulties in phonological processing, rapid naming, and successive processing. J.W. further reported experiencing difficulties seeing links among several things and working with patterns and designs (indices of simultaneous processing). In contrast, L.G. reported experiencing difficulties in remembering directions in order or long lists of words (indices of successive processing). Taken together, our results suggest that we can trace the roots of these difficulties to fundamental information processing skills such as successive and simultaneous processing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".