MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410871963 · doi:10.1017/s0305000925100044

The Role of Home Literacy Environment in Word Reading and Listening Comprehension in Chinese

2025· article· en· W4410871963 on OpenAlexaff
Tomohiro Inoue, Suzhen Zhang, Meng Yu, George K. Georgiou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Language · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee
KeywordsPhonological awarenessPsychologyActive listeningLiteracyReading comprehensionVocabularyReading (process)ComprehensionSocioeconomic statusVocabulary developmentLinguisticsDevelopmental psychologyTeaching methodMathematics educationPedagogyCommunicationPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the direct and indirect associations between home literacy environment (HLE) and children's listening comprehension and word reading in Chinese. Three hundred forty-seven Chinese kindergarten children (mean age = 74.01 months, 50% female) were tested on measures of pinyin letter knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, word reading, and listening comprehension. Their parents completed a questionnaire about their socioeconomic status and the three aspects of HLE (code-related and meaning-related HLE, access to literacy resources). Results of path analysis showed that access to literacy resources was indirectly associated with both listening comprehension and word reading through the effects of phonological awareness and vocabulary. These findings suggest that in the early phases of language and literacy development, print materials in the home may be important not only for written-language skills but also for oral-language 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child LanguageSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207