Further implications of wearing literate glasses: Considerations for developmental research, psycholinguistics and clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous pensons que l’argument de Kolinsky et Morais a de profondes implications pour la recherche sur le développement, les études psycholinguistiques conduites avec des adultes et la pratique clinique. Dans ce commentaire, nous soulignons les implications spécifiques pour chacun de ces domaines. Plus précisément, nous soulignons la nécessité de prendre en compte les influences bidirectionnelles entre le développement du langage oral et le développement de l’alphabétisation. Nous soulignons le fait que les participants des recherches ont tendance à ne représenter que les couches les plus alphabétisées de la société, ce qui limite la généralisation des résultats. Enfin, nous examinons les évaluations cliniques et suggérons qu’en tant que domaine, nous devons reconsidérer et mieux contextualiser ces évaluations. Pris ensemble, ces points soulignent que les chercheurs et les cliniciens doivent se méfier de la façon avec laquelle la recherche et les pratiques d’évaluation actuelles reposent sur les préjugés qui résultent du port de lunettes lettrées.
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 | 0.046 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".