Cognitive Processes and Their Relation to Word Reading, Comprehension, and Math Competence in A Sample of School Children Who Live in Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper reports an investigation into the structure of the relationship between cognitive processes on the one hand, and Reading and Math competence on the other within a neurocognitive frame-work (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous and Successive processing, PASS). The participants were children in Grades 4 and 5 from a school located in a low-SES region of Odisha, India. All of them were English Language Learners whose mother tongue was Odia. Structural Equation modelling showed that Word decoding was best predicted by a latent factor comprising Planning, and Successive and Simultaneous processes, whereas Comprehension was better explained by Successive and Simultaneous processing. Math competence was best predicted by Simultaneous processing and to a lesser extent by Planning. These results were weakened by the deleterious effects of chronic poverty that included lack of exposure to English language and reading materials. In spite of this limitation, broad relationship between PASS processes on the one hand, and Reading and Math achievement on the other, replicated previous findings as noted in a metaanalysis. That lead us to suggest a reason based on the basic universality of structure and functions of the brain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".