Dyslexia in a consistent orthography: Evidence from reading‐level match design
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
Studies in consistent orthographies using reading-level (RL) match design have produced conflicting results, possibly because of problems with general ability and RL matching in many studies. We matched the participants on both verbal and nonverbal ability and on reading tasks with no ceiling effects and compared the performance of Grades 4 and 6 Greek-speaking children with dyslexia to those of chronological age (CA) and RL matched control groups across a variety of tasks associated with dyslexia (phonological awareness, rapid naming, phonological memory, and orthographic processing). The results showed that although both Grade 4 and Grade 6 dyslexics performed poorer than the CA groups in most tasks, they did not perform poorer than the RL group in any of the tasks included. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical ramifications of the results and the appropriateness of the RL match design in studying dyslexia in consistent orthographies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it