A Computerized Syllable-Based Intervention for French-Speaking Children with Down Syndrome: What Effects on Reading Skills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to provide to eight children with Down Syndrome a syllable-processing software program that drew their attention to phonological and orthographic syllables. The children participated in a 10-hour training course (spread over 5 weeks) that used an experimental design with four assessment sessions, the first two of which were used to obtain a baseline in literacy skills. The effect of training was assessed just after training and two months later. A significant effect on decoding was observed at medium term after training. All children progressed in at least one domain, either in phonological skills, in decoding, or in word reading. Four children progressed in decoding and word reading. This study confirms the appropriateness of using phonetic approaches to reading instruction in order to stimulate learning to read in children with Down Syndrome. The syllable-based training facilitates the construction of associations between letters and syllables—the “syllabic bridge”—and could be a faster and easier way to learn letter-sound correspondences in French.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".