Reading achievement and deaf students with cochlear implants
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
Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the reading outcomes of a Canadian cohort of school-aged deaf learners with cochlear implants (CIs). The goal was to investigate whether achievement approached that of hearing age peers and identify demographic factors influencing performance.Methods Participants represent a subset of 13 students with CIs from a larger sample of 70 deaf students in grades four through 12 educated in inclusive settings within a large school board in central Canada. Data sources included demographic information, teachers’ ratings on the Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP), and scores from the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery [WJ III-DRB].Results/Discussion: Participants performed within the low average range in all areas except for Phonological Awareness, which was in the low range; however, there was wide variability in scores across participants. None of the demographic variables (e.g. home language, additional disabilities) had a statistically significant association with performance, although older students had higher mean scores on the Phonological Awareness cluster.Conclusion These findings add to the body of research on literacy achievement and cochlear implantation, providing evidence that this technology has a significant positive effect on outcomes for a population that has heretofore underperformed in this area.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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