Automaticity and Control: How Do Executive Functions and Reading Fluency Interact in Predicting Reading Comprehension?
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
Abstract The authors investigated the roles of reading fluency in mediating and moderating the relation between executive functions and reading comprehension. Linguistically diverse students ( n = 106) were assessed on multiple measures of reading fluency at the passage and word levels, reading comprehension, and executive functions in grade 7 and again in grade 8. Path analyses using factor scores indicated that executive functions made indirect (mediated) contributions to reading comprehension via reading fluency, controlling for oral vocabulary and processing speed in both grades. Mediation was partial, with a statistically significant direct contribution of executive functions to reading comprehension remaining. Interaction analyses indicated that executive functions also statistically significantly interacted with reading fluency in predicting reading comprehension in both grades. Contrary to theoretical predictions, these interactions were positive, with executive functions predicting reading comprehension more strongly for students with higher reading fluency. Findings indicate that executive functions are implicated in reading fluency and that the contributions of executive functions and reading fluency to reading comprehension may be multiplicative rather than additive or compensatory.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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