MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399467383 · doi:10.18295/2075-0528.1378

Understanding Dyslexia in Children through Human Development Theories

2012· article· en· W4399467383 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslexiaPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceLinguisticsReading (process)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin, with an estimated overall worldwide prevalence of 5–10% of the population. It is characterised by difficulties in reading, accuracy, fluency, spelling and decoding abilities. The majority of publications reviewed indicated that screening is performed at the preschool level. Screening can also be conducted at birth or the first year of life. Understanding human development theory, for example, Piaget’s human development theory, may help determine at which stage of childhood development dyslexia is more detectable, and therefore guide the management of this disability. The objective of this review is to provide a brief and updated overview of dyslexia and its management in children through human development issues.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.248 · 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