MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6990440797

Developing Language-specific Screening Tools: Assessing Phonological Awareness Skills in Urdu-English Bilingual Children

2021· dissertation· W6990440797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonological awarenessUrduVocabularyReading (process)LiteracyTest (biology)Phonemic awareness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood literacy is a major contributor to future academic and socio-economic success. It is therefore important to provide early reading intervention, via literacy precursor screening tools that can detect potential reading difficulties. Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted phonological awareness and vocabulary as commonly assessed literacy precursors that are consistently associated with (and in many cases predict) reading abilities in bilinguals (Chapter 2). To address the English-language assessment bias evident in our review, I developed an age- and linguistically-appropriate Urdu phonological awareness test (Chapter 3). I assessed 95 typically-developing Urdu-English simultaneous bilinguals, in Grades 1-2, across Canada and Pakistan on Urdu and English phonological awareness, expressive vocabulary and word/non-word reading measures. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses indicated significant within-language associations between the novel Urdu phonological awareness test and word/non-word reading, thereby demonstrating criterion-based validity. The developed Urdu phonological awareness test will facilitate early literacy screening in Urdu and linguistically-related languages.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicReading and Literacy Development→French-language works237,207→