Supporting the Development of Receptive Vocabulary and Family Literacy Among Children Ages 4 and 5 with General Developmental Delay: A Collaborative Project with Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because language-related skills in early childhood can predict reading and writing skills in school, as well as social engagement in adulthood, it is important to implement concrete actions to assist in the development of language skills among these children (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC], 2021). Knowledge of existing research can help guide the planning of individualized support for families when it comes to expanding their child’s receptive vocabulary. This article describes the results of a two-year research project exploring the evolution of a support structure for families, of receptive vocabulary for children through Peabody testing (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981), and of the literacy habits (speaking, reading and writing) of families via a questionnaire. The results of this mixed method research reveal that all of these parents require significant support. The children have increased the frequency at which they read, as well as the frequency at which they leaf through books. Among the most telling results, we saw that most of the children in the study have expanded their receptive vocabulary in the books they read.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".