MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249183382 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.61.1.11

Early Identification of At-Risk L2 Readers

2004· article· en· W4249183382 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sharon J. MacCoubrey, Lesly Wade‐Woolley, Don A. Klinger, John R. Kirby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Isolation (microbiology)Phonological awarenessPsychologyLinear discriminant analysisLinguisticsIdentification (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined which measures best identify English-speaking French immersion (FI) students at risk of future reading difficulties in French and English. Using reading scores taken in both languages at the end of Grade 1 and beginning of Grade 2, typical and poor reader groups were identified. Measures taken at the beginning of Grade 1 in tasks evaluating phonological abilities in English were used to determine group membership. Predictive discriminant analysis showed that performance on phoneme blending and sound isolation tasks identified poor and typical readers in English, while phoneme blending, sound isolation, and Rapid Naming identified poor and typical readers in French. These results can be used to identify new cases for the purpose of early reading interventions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207