MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089085415 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571033

From Storybooks to Novels: A Retrospective Approach Linking Print Exposure in Childhood to Adolescence

2020· article· en· W3089085415 on OpenAlexafffund
Brittany Tremblay, Monyka L. Rodrigues, Sandra Martin‐Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEarly childhood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the far-reaching advantages associated with leisure reading, it is an activity that fewer adolescents are choosing to pursue. The present study used a retrospective correlational approach to investigate shared storybook reading in childhood and current print exposure in 45 parent-adolescent dyads. Parents and adolescents completed a Retrospective Title Recognition Test, identifying storybook titles from a backdated list (books published before 2007) containing both real titles and foils. Adolescents also completed Activity Preference and Reading Enjoyment/Frequency questionnaires to assess reading habits as well as an Author Recognition Test to assess current print exposure. In addition, they were asked to name their favorite childhood storybook and favorite current author to investigate whether these two abilities were linked to print exposure. Vocabulary, reading, and spelling skills were also measured. A hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that adolescents' Retrospective Title Recognition Test scores accounted for unique variance in their Author Recognition Test scores, above and beyond literacy skills. Mediational analyses demonstrated that print exposure contributed to word reading and spelling scores. Our findings highlight the impact of parents' shared storybook reading with children. Here, early reading experiences related to later reading preferences, which in turn, were associated with literacy skills in adolescence.

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)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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