MétaCan
Menu
← all works

Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence From Self‐Paced Reading and Sentence Recall Tasks

2011· article· en· 379 citations· W1549337014 on OpenAlex· 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
none
Consensus categories
none
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: Bench or experimentalConsensus signal: Bench or experimental
Genre
Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score
0.051
Threshold uncertainty score
0.648
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread
0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which lexical bundles (LBs; i.e., frequently recurring strings of words that often span traditional syntactic boundaries) are stored and processed holistically. Three self‐paced reading experiments compared sentences containing LBs (e.g., in the middle of the ) and matched control sentence fragments (e.g., in the front of the ). LBs and sentences containing LBs were read faster than the control sentence fragments in all three experiments. Two follow‐up word and sentence recall experiments demonstrated that more sentences containing LBs were correctly remembered. Consistent with construction‐type models of language, these results suggest that regular multiword sequences leave memory traces in the brain.

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.

The record

Venue
Language Learning
Topic
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Field
Neuroscience
Canadian institutions
University of Alberta
Funders
not available
Keywords
SentenceReading (process)RecallNatural language processingLinguisticsPsychologyWord (group theory)Artificial intelligencePsycholinguisticsControl (management)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyCognition
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes