Individual Differences in Leveraging Regularity in Emergent L2 Readers in Rural Côte d’Ivoire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Statistical learning (SL) approaches to reading maintain that proficient reading requires assimilation of the rich statistical regularities in the writing system. Reading skills in developing first- and second-language readers in English have been shown to be predicted by individual differences in sensitivity to statistical regularities in orthography and semantics, with good readers relying more on orthographic consistency, and less on semantic associations. However, the study of SL and its relation to reading has been primarily studied in English readers in WEIRD countries, limiting the universality of our theories. Method: We examine individual differences in sensitivity to regularities utilising a word naming task in emergent French readers in rural communities in Côte d’Ivoire (N=134). Results: We show that, in contrast to previous studies, in our cohort better readers leverage semantic associations more strongly, while individual differences in sensitivity to orthographic consistency did not predict reading skill. Relatively little variance in reading skill was explained by sensitivity to these regularities. Conclusion: This showcases the importance of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research to back up universal theories of literacy, and suggests that current SL accounts of reading must be updated to account for this variance in reading skills.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it