MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120916055 · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12346

Special issue editorial: Advances in understanding the role of morphemes in literacy development

2021· article· en· W3120916055 on OpenAlexaff
Helen L. Breadmore, Kyle Levesque, S. Hélène Deacon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Reading · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphemeSpellingPsychologyLiteracyLinguisticsReading (process)NarrativeCognitive sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue, Advances in Understanding the Role of Morphemes in Literacy Development, is composed of one narrative review and 11 empirical papers that contribute new theoretical and empirical evidence to our understanding of how morphemes influence reading and spelling development. Here, we summarise key findings from these papers in terms of what they tell us about the multidimensional nature of morphological knowledge and how morphological information is processed at different levels, including across developmental changes and languages. Throughout this discussion, we draw out the implications for education and highlight targeted areas for further research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in ReadingSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207