Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This investigation focused on the role of meaning in the learning of sight vocabulary for beginning readers. Phase I reported the collection of associative data and reconstruction of a search of meaningfulness for 48 selected nouns. Phase II presented data regarding two sight vocabulary teaching-testing cycles with an intermediate interval inferred for "associa-tion verbal encoding " (a/v/e) training. Subjects were 46 first grade children. Results indicate that meaningfulness facilitated rate of acquisition and retention of sight vocabulary and that "process plus content " a/v/e training facilitated sight vocabulary retention when compared to no training in a/v/e. Reading theory and teaching practice have long reflected the general consensus that word meaning has a facilitative role in the acquisition of reading responses. However, much of the research that has focused on this issue has been confined to word recognition in a contextual situation. Although evidence from verbal learning studies with relatively proficient readers has indicated that word meaning also facilitates isolated response acquitision, such research has not been extended to include beginning readers. This oversight appears to be somewhat significant considering the crucial role of sight vocabulary learning, a form of isolated response acquisition, in the initial stages of reading. The focus of this investigation was on the role of meaning in the learning of sight vocabulary for beginning readers. The nature of the study made it necessary to impose delimitations on the concept of "word meaning " as it is generally used. It was not the quality of meaningful responses, but the degree of meaning or "meaningfulness, " defined in terms of associative response frequency, which was the central issue in the study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.476 | 0.069 |
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".