Reading skills of deaf adults who sign : good and poor readers compared
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional literacy is difficult to achieve for the deaf population. Sixty percent of deaf high school students read at or below grade four, eight percent read at or above grade eight. The present study investigated two factors that may contribute to these individual differences in reading achievement in the deaf signing population: signed language comprehension skills and word recognition skills. In Study 1, 31 deaf adults (12 women and 19 men) between the ages of 17 and 54 years were categorized as either a Good Reader or Poor Reader to determine what factors would differentiate them. These groups were tested with a battery of background questionnaires, speech use and comprehension, communication, hearing, nonverbal IQ measures, three signed language measures, and two reading tests. Results showed that the Good and Poor Readers differed significantly on signed language comprehension skills. The Poor Readers (mean reading level grade 3.5) had poor sign language comprehension and the Good Readers (mean reading level grade 10.5) had good sign language comprehension.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".