Bibliographic record
Abstract
An introduction to reading the world's scripts Taylor, D.R. Olson. Part I Optional and Optimal Scripts: Scripts and writing systems - a historical perspective, A. Gaur Optimal orthographies, H. Rogers Logographic and semasiographic writing systems - a critique of Sampson's classification, J.M. Unger, J. DeFrancis syllabary and the writing system riddle - a paradigm in crisis, S. McCarthy Developing orthographies - the Athapaskan languages of the Northwest Territories, Canada, K.D. Rice Orthography and reading in Kannada - a Dravidian language, P. Prakash, R. Malatesha Joshi. Part II Reading Processes for Different Scripts: How English is read - grapheme-phoneme regularity and orthographic structure in word recognition, R.L. Venezky Getting at the sound and meaning of logographic and alphabetic scripts, R. Hoosain Script factors that affect literacy - alphabetic vs. logographic languages, In-Mao Liu Orthographic and psycholinguistic considerations in developing literacy in Chinese, Che Kan Leong Differential processing of content words and function words - Chinese characters vs. phonetic scripts, I. Taylor, Kwonsaeng Park. Part III Early Stage of Learning to Read: Teaching Japanese toddlers to read Kanji and Kana, M.T. Steinberg Asymmetries between reading and writing for Japanese children, J. Yamada Reading disabilities in Japan - implications from the study of hemisphere functioning, T. Hatta, T. Hirose Writing systems and acquisition of reading in American, Chinese, and Japanese first-graders, Shin-Ying Lee, D.H. Uttal, Chuansheng Chen Brahmi scripts, orthographic units and reading acquisition, P.G. Patel Orthographic and cognitive processing in learning to read English and Hebrew, E. Geva. Part IV Cognitive and Metalinguistic Implications of Learning to Read: Script directionality affects nonlinguistic performance - evidence from Hindi and Urdu, J. Vaid Cognitive consequences of L1 and L2 orthographies, K. Koda Lexical representation of script variation - evidence from Korean biscriptals, Kwonsaeng Park, J. Vaid Syllabic literacy and cognitive performance among the Cree and Ojibwe people of Northern Canada, J.W. Berry, J.A. Bennett Orthography, vision, and phonemic awareness, R.J. Scholes
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".