MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006036075 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00146

The Development of Morphological Knowledge and Spelling in French

2020· article· en· W3006036075 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruth Mussar, Monique Sénéchal, Véronique Rey

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpellingMorphemePsychologyLexiconLinguisticsDictationConstruct (python library)Explicit knowledgePhonologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Frenchorthographic system is particularly difficult to learn because nearly 30% of words in the lexicon end with a silent letter. One metalinguistic skill that has been identified to facilitate spelling acquisition in French is morphological knowledge. This cross-sectional study investigated the construct of morphological knowledge, its development and its role in building accurate orthographic representations in a sample of francophone elementary students. We proposed that morphological knowledge, a superordinate process, encompasses children's implicit use of morphemes in everyday language and their conscious, targeted manipulation of morphemes. In the present study, we assessed children's recognition of morphogrammes, the silent-letter endings (SLEs) of root words that become pronounced in suffixed forms (e.g., the silent t in chant/ʃã/ [song] → chanteur /ʃãtœʀ/ [singer]). When spelling root words, children may mark morphogrammes by recalling morphologically related words in which the morphogramme is not silent - thus, morphological knowledge was hypothesized to positively predict morphogramme spelling. One hundred and twenty-three children in grades 1-3 were assessed on four measures of morphological knowledge, two measures of spelling recognition and a dictation of pseudowords to explore their inclusion of silent-letter endings in novel words. As expected, morphological tasks that required explicit morphological manipulations were harder than implicit ones. Moreover, first graders struggled to complete explicit morphological tasks, while third graders were near ceiling performance on implicit tasks. Nevertheless, the four tasks converged on a single morphological knowledge construct as confirmed by a factor analysis. Importantly, morphological knowledge explained unique variance in children's accurate representation of silent-letter endings after controlling for grade, reading for pleasure and general orthographic recognition of words. Finally, children rarely used silent-letter endings when spelling pseudowords; however, when they did, they displayed sensitivity to the appropriate phonological context for the letter used. The findings are in accord with theoretical models suggesting that the representations of letters without phonological value are difficult to construct and may remain fuzzy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207