MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526140765 · doi:10.1002/acp.2961

New Word Acquisition in Children: Examining the Contribution of Verbal Short‐term Memory to Lexical and Semantic Levels of Learning

2013· article· en· W1526140765 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Côté, Nancie Rouleau, Joël Macoir

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyVocabularyVerbal learningSemantic memoryShort-term memorySemantics (computer science)Verbal memoryVocabulary developmentLanguage acquisitionWord learningTask (project management)Working memoryLong-term memoryCognitionLexical decision taskLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A variety of evidence suggests that human vocabulary acquisition and verbal short‐term ability are related. The aim of this study was to investigate the learning of new lexical and semantic representation in 7 to 12 years old children selected on the basis of their poor working memory capacity. A deep characterization of the short‐term memory (STM) capacities has been carried out through a series of tasks derived from recent STM models tapping STM, language and attentional processes. Participants experienced a three conditions word learning task designed to reflect lexical learning, semantic learning and lexical–semantic learning capacities. Other aspects of the learning such as the learning rate and the word length effect were evaluated. The experimental participants scored more poorly than controls on lexical learning, and this deficit was associated with the serial order STM and the attentional capacities. The current study also highlighted that neither the experimental group nor the control group took advantage in lexical learning of semantic information supplement. Our results suggest that children with verbal STM problems learn a smaller number of new words but present a similar way of learning than children without verbal STM problems. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Cognitive PsychologySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207