MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108339498 · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2025.11.002

Where do I begin to read? Concepts about print support early L1 and L2 word reading in emerging bilingual readers

2025· article· en· W7108339498 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Childhood Research Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReading (process)Word (group theory)Neuroscience of multilingualismExtensive readingReading comprehension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before children learn to read, they develop an understanding of how books, words, and letters work, also known as concepts about print. This is an established correlate of word reading skills. A key remaining question is whether concepts about print predict word reading among learners schooled in a language other than the home language. In this longitudinal study with 95 emerging bilingual children followed from kindergarten to Grade 1, we tested whether concepts about print assessed in kindergarten in English (the home language) predicted word reading concurrently and/or longitudinally in English and French (the language of instruction in school) after controlling for nonverbal reasoning, parental education level, receptive vocabulary, and phonological awareness. We found that kindergarten English concepts about print contributed to significant variance in English and French word reading both concurrently and longitudinally. These results suggest that concepts about print acquired in the home language may enable word reading skills in the language of school instruction among emerging bilingual readers. They align with the emergent literacy perspective that conceptualizes early literacy skills as foundational to the acquisition of conventional forms of literacy, including literacy acquired in an additional language.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.365 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Childhood Research QuarterlySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207