MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950013375 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8023206

Adapting healthy literacy diet plan as supplementary approach in vocabulary development among selected grade 7 students of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School

2022· article· en· W6950013375 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyReading (process)LiteracyReading comprehensionReadabilityIntervention (counseling)Quarter (Canadian coin)Treatment and control groups

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dependent readers often read less, have less exposure to print and therefore have limited sight vocabularies (Rief & Stern, 2010). In this study, the researchers examined effectiveness of adapting healthy literacy diet plan as supplementary approach in vocabulary development. The study targeted a group of 55 identified dependent readers among selected grade 7 students of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School. The intervention consisted of two treatments; treatment 1 was for twenty-three (23) dependent readers who used the diet literacy plan and treatment 2 was for twenty-two (22) identified dependent readers who used traditional vocabulary activities. Based on the findings, the researchers found out that adapting the modified model was effective in treatment 1. The score increased from means of 9.17 to 37.17, signifying a 72.23% improvement percentage rate. In Treatment 2, the score increased from means of 9.0 to 32.5, signifying a 52.22% improvement percentage rate. As compared both post-test results of each group signify that treatment 1 who used the healthy literacy model resulted to 10.40% higher compared to the group who did not utilize the model. The comparison of the two treatments determined the significant difference using adapted and standardized methods of word reading, reading fluency, reading comprehension, word attack skills and spelling. After six months of utilization, majority of the learners made substantial improvements in reading and reading fluency. Reading comprehension enhancements were more varied with almost a quarter of participants showing remarkable progress, while the remainder recorded considerably fewer notable gains (O’Rourke et al., 2016). The results were very encouraging to the researcher and demonstrated that research validated approaches can help at-stake readers close the gap with their typically developing peers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicReading and Literacy Development→French-language works237,207→