MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1777013583 · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1054844

Vietnamese compounds show an anti-frequency effect in visual lexical decision

2015· article· en· W1777013583 on OpenAlexaff
Hiển Phạm, R. Harald Baayen

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Cognition and Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseLexical decision taskComputer scienceNatural language processingCLARITYContext (archaeology)Discriminative modelPhonologyLinguisticsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Vietnamese has a long history of linguistic research, as yet no psycholinguistic studies addressing lexical processing in this language have been carried out. This paper is the first to investigate lexical processing in Vietnamese, and this addresses the reading of Vietnamese bi-syllabic compound words. A large single-subject experiment with 20,000 words was complemented by a smaller multiple-subject experiment with 550 words. We report the novel finding of an inhibitory, anti-frequency effect of Vietnamese compounds’ constituents. We show that this anti-frequency effect is predicted by a computational model of lexical processing grounded in naive discrimination learning. We also show that predictors derived from this model provide a much better fit to the observed reaction times than traditional lexical-distributional predictors. Effects of the density of the compound graph, previously observed for English, were replicated for Vietnamese. Furthermore, tone diacritics were found to be important predictors of silent reading, providing further evidence for the role of phonology in reading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Cognition and NeuroscienceSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207